Repeatability of whole-building airtightness testing in a residential wood-framed building under varying weather conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the repeatability of whole-building airtightness testing under varying weather conditions in a two-story, wood-framed residential building with an enclosure volume of 818 m 3 and an area of 532 m 2 , located in Victoria, Canada, situated in Climatic Zone 4C (Marine), characterized by mild, wet winters and cool summers. Air leakage tests, performed in accordance with ASTM E779, were conducted using blower door pressurization and depressurization methods. Weather variables recorded during testing included wind speed (2–14 km/h), indoor (17–23 °C), and outdoor (5–16 °C) temperatures, and relative humidity (indoor: 34%–59%; outdoor: 46%–96%). Regression analysis revealed no significant correlation between weather variability and airtightness metrics. Depressurization tests consistently demonstrated more airtight results compared to pressurization. These findings reinforce that blower door testing results are repeatable and reliable despite weather fluctuations, validating the applicability of single-event airtightness tests for evaluating building envelopes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".