MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947781523 · doi:10.4224/40001251

Code national de la plomberie : Canada : 2005

2008· standard· fr· W6947781523 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2008
Typestandard
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational libraryEconomic shortage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plus de 200 modifications techniques ont été apportées à cette nouvelle édition. Le CNP renferme les dispositions techniques concernant la conception et la mise en place d'installations de plomberie neuves. Il s'applique aussi au prolongement, à la transformation, à la rénovation et à la réparation des installations de plomberie existantes. De nouveaux renseignements ont été ajoutés à la version de 2005 du CNP afin de rendre celui-ci plus clair, plus facile à adapter aux installations de plomberie existantes et plus souple relativement aux percées technologiques. Ils expliquent les objectifs que les dispositions du CNP visent à atteindre et décrivent les fonctions qu'une installation de plomberie ou ses éléments doivent remplir afin de respecter les objectifs. La présentation du CNP a été modifiée et comprend maintenant trois divisions, soit les divisions A, B et C. La division A comprend les options de conformité, les objectifs et les énoncés fonctionnels. La division B contient les exigences, maintenant appelées « solutions acceptables », concernant divers sujets tels les matériaux, systèmes et équipements, la tuyauterie, les systèmes de drainage, les systèmes de ventilation et les systèmes d'eau potable et non potable. La division C contient les dispositions administratives. Le CNP 2005 est un outil indispensable pour quiconque souhaite concevoir ou installer des installations de plomberie.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207