The booming party walls being constructed in the skyscrapers of Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With eight new 300 m or higher buildings and another ninety shorter skyscrapers either under construction or proposed for the booming Toronto real estate market, there is no shortage of work for acoustic consultants in Toronto at the moment. Most of the high-rise buildings allocated for residential use include concrete floors and ceilings, glass curtain walls, and lightweight, steel stud gypsum board interior walls. A party wall design that has become popular among architects is a double steel stud wall with one or more layers of gypsum board attached to the studs in the gap between the rows of studs in addition to the gypsum board attached to the exterior of the studs. Typically, the transmission loss values for the wall designs used to demonstrate compliance with the building code are those for single stud walls with equivalent stud gauges and numbers of exterior layers of gypsum board. Due to the lack of available data, the National Research Council of Canada measured the transmission loss of many of these wall designs and found that adding the gypsum board in the cavity between the rows of studs has a significant effect on the transmission loss below 200 Hz.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".