HYGROTHERMAL PERFORMANCE OF SHEEP WOOL IN COLD AND HUMID CLIMATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When selecting insulation materials, not only should their thermal efficiency be considered, but also their impact on the environment.Compared to conventional insulation materials, bio-based materials not only have comparable thermal performance, but they also have a lower embodied energy.Sheep wool has the advantages of low negative health impact, high fire resistance, eco-friendliness, and high moisture resistance.However, studies on applying sheep wool insulation in cold and humid climates are still insufficient.The purpose of this study is to simulate the hygrothermal performance of sheep wool insulation for the Quebec City climate, as well as analyse the mould growth risks.The results show that sheep wool wall has better thermal performance than a reference wall and that both meet the minimum requirements of the Quebec Code for thermal performance of above-ground walls.The total water content indicates that the sheep wool wall can reach dynamic equilibrium in the Quebec climate and can dry out.At the same time, a delay of almost four months in the maximum total water content indicates that the sheep wool wall has high moisture absorption compared to the reference wall.The hygrothermal profiles show that the sheathing-insulation interface of both walls is the highest risk for condensation.When the interior surface gypsum was replaced by stucco, the mould index significantly drops.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".