Hygrothermal characterization and performance of wood in assemblies accounting for contamination by <i>Serpula lacrymans</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some wood-destroying fungi are increasingly present in Québec, Canada, and this reported increase seems to coincide with climate change. Serpula lacrymans is a brown rot fungus that is one of the most destructive fungi reported across the province. This paper documents and simulates the spread of biodegradation in wood-framed buildings and, more specifically, investigates this spread considering the impact of S. lacrymans contamination of wood components on the hygrothermal performance of wall assemblies. The work presented is two-pronged. First, we assess physical and mechanical properties of pine and spruce wood degraded by S. lacrymans . Density, porosity, water vapor permeability, water vapor sorption, capillary water absorption, water content at capillary saturation and effective saturation have been measured to provide comparative insight for healthy and contaminated wood. Degraded samples showed an increase in their water vapor resistance factor and water content at capillary saturation as well as a general decrease in values of sorption isotherms and capillary water absorption coefficients. Effective saturation values were higher for degraded spruce samples and lower for degraded pine samples. The mechanical properties tested showed that, even if the measured mass loss is negligible, loss of mechanical strength can be considerable. Second, we assess how the presence of damaged wood affects the hygrothermal performance of different envelope assemblies for seven climatic sub-regions in Québec. The degradation criterion is based on the duration of exposure to humidity and temperature levels conducive to the fungal growth. S. lacrymans has a particular ability compared to other decay fungi in that it can move water source toward sought nutrients. Hence, fungal presence and distribution in the envelope assemblies is modeled with two means: modified water transport properties obtained from laboratory measurements on contaminated wood and addition of water flux in wood components to simulate hyphae-borne moisture transfer in the assemblies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".