MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929142233 · doi:10.4224/20377235

Design criteria for sprinklered mobile shelving units for the National Library of Canada

2005· report· en· W6929142233 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational standardRowSpace (punctuation)Technical standardNational libraryLibrary classification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In early 1991, the design began for a new sprinkler system for the existing National Archives/National Library of Canada building in Ottawa. The primary challenge in the design and installation of the sprinkler systems was to protect mobile compact shelving units located in the three levels below grade in the building. Storage of documents in these open shelving units is typically within 178 mrn (7 in.) of the concrete slab ceiling. Since the minimum clearance pemitted by sprinkler system installation standards is 457 rnm (18 in.) from the sprinkler to the top of the storage, the potential impact on existing storage practices and space requirements for the National Archives/Library was significant in order to comply with sprinkler installation standards and to assure adequate fire protection, the Library faced the prospect of removing all storage from the top shelves and, in many cases, the top two shelving rows throughout the stack areas. In addition to the Library staff resources necessary to remove and reorganize files, the cost estimate for additional storage space would have exceeded $1 million per year.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 venueNPARCSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207