MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391730762 · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.113974

Hygrothermal performance of straw bales split-insulation wall assembly in cold and humid climates

2024· article· en· W4391730762 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yuchen Chen, Xiaodong Wang, Dehong Li, Denis Rodrigue, Louis Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and Buildings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHygrothermal properties of building materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsStrawCold climateEnvironmental scienceCold weatherEngineeringMeteorologyAgronomyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abundance of straw in Quebec makes this material an interesting insulation option to reduce the energy consumption of buildings. At the same time, studies indicate that straw bales’ outstanding hygrothermal performance can provide a comfortable living experience for the occupants. However, due to the slightly higher thermal conductivity of straw bales insulation compared to common insulation materials, the walls are found to be 30–90% thicker, which can lead to moisture-related problems especially under a humid and cold outdoor climate. Therefore, a split-insulation wall structure was used in this study to reduce the wall thickness by combining straw bales with expanded polystyrene (EPS) exterior insulation. Results show that straw bale walls generally have higher thermal inertia and better moisture buffer capacity compared to the reference wall using glass fiber insulation. The hygrothermal profiles show that the sheathing-insulation interface is the position having the highest relative humidity in the walls. The biohygrothermal model also suggests that under Quebec’s climate, the mould grow risk in a straw bales wall with two inches EPS exterior insulation is within acceptable limits.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy and BuildingsSame topicHygrothermal properties of building materialsFrench-language works237,207