MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947623696 · doi:10.4224/gmkn-wj51

Illustrated User's Guide: NBC 2020: Part 9 of Division B, Housing and Small Buildings

2025· standard· en· W6947623696 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2025
Typestandard
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding envelopeBuilding codeOccupancyFire protectionBuilding scienceDivision (mathematics)Efficient energy use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Illustrated User’s Guide for the National Building Code of Canada 2020: Part 9 of Division B, Housing and Small Buildings features hundreds of graphics, examples and calculations. This edition of the guide provides updated information on the following topics: • Safety measures for openable windows in buildings of residential occupancy • Home-type care occupancy and related fire protection measures • Penetrations of fire separations by outlet boxes, service equipment, raceways, sprinklers and fire dampers • Vapour barrier materials and their uses • Connectors and fasteners in contact with preservative-treated wood and the penetration of fasteners for cladding, shakes and shingles • The location of exhaust outlets • Airtightness testing of the building envelope and requirements for the use of test results to determine airtightness levels • Energy performance tiers, which provide a flexible compliance framework for achieving higher levels of energy efficiency in housing and small buildings • A prescriptive trade-off path with energy conservation measures that can be credited with energy conservation points to attain Energy Performance Tier 2 The User’s Guide helps builders and designers understand the National Building Code of Canada 2020 as it applies to housing and smalls buildings. It also provides detailed explanations of the principles and rationale behind the provisions of Part 9.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207