MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6910297018 · doi:10.4224/20377290

Target VOC List. Final Report 1.1: CMEIAQ-II: Consortium for Material Emission and IAQ Modelling II

2005· report· en· W6910297018 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndoor air qualityAir quality indexWork (physics)Principal (computer security)Quality (philosophy)Phase (matter)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2000, the Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada (IRC/NRC) launched the second phase of the Material Emissions and Indoor Air Quality Modelling project (CMEIAQ-II). The second phase of this project is the direct result of the support and suggestions from the first phase's consortium members for continued work on this research topic. In the second phase, the research is directed towards two principal objectives. The first is to develop the knowledge and tools needed to estimate concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated by the emissions from building materials and furnishings in order to gain a better understanding of the effects of those products on indoor air quality (IAQ). The second is to provide the scientific bases needed to enhance indoor air quality guidelines for office and residential buildings. An important addition to the project in this phase was the Health and End Users Advisory Committee, which was tasked to provide much needed input from the health sector and advice to help tailor the project outputs to better meet the needs of end-users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.077

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→