Durability of Building and Construction Sealants and Adhesives: 5th Volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Description These 17 papers were presented on June 25 and 26, 2014 at the Sheraton Hotel in Toronto Canada after the regular ASTM C24 meeting. The theme of this symposium was largely inspired by a comment made by a member: “Who cares about durability?” The volume of construction sealants compared to the volume of common construction materials on a major project is extremely small, however the building does not perform properly without sealants. Thus, the short answer to aforementioned question is: everyone should care. The durability of a building is directly related to that building’s sealants. ASTM C24 has global influence on standards for building sealants used in commercial and multi-use buildings. ASTM C24 committee holds the US Technical Action Group (TAG) to ISO TC 59/SC 8 Building Sealants of which both editors are active participants. Developing and developed countries look to the building sealant standards written by the ASTM and ISO groups to accept as their own standards or make modifications from them. This book is the fifth volume concentrating on building sealant durability on an international platform. With the collaboration and dedication of the members of C24 who write and maintain standards, the owners and architects responsible for the world’s iconic structures can be confident of the liquid applied sealant materials that make their buildings safe and comfortable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.025 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".