MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6948150551 · doi:10.4224/21277598

Fire endurance of cross-laminated timber floor and wall assemblies for tall wood buildings

2014· report· en· W6948150551 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2014
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeflection (physics)GypsumThermocoupleCross laminated timberOriented strand boardFlueStructural integrity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard fire endurance tests were performed on a full-scale floor assembly and a full-scale wall assembly constructed with cross-laminated timber (CLT) as the main structural element. The full-scale floor assembly consisted of CLT panels encapsulated with fiberglass wool and a single layer of 15.9 mm thick Type X gypsum board on the exposed side and with two layers of 12.7 mm thick cement board on the unexposed side. The full-scale wall assembly was constructed from CLT panels encapsulated with two layers of 15.9 mm thick Type X gypsum board on both faces. Nine thermocouples were installed on the unexposed face of both assemblies to monitor the temperature rise throughout the test and nine deflection gauges were installed on each assembly to monitor deformations. The superimposed load applied on the floor assembly was 9.4 kN/m² and the load imposed on the wall assembly was 449 kN/m. The fire endurance period of the full-scale floor assembly was 128 minutes and that of the full-scale wall assembly 219 minutes. Both the full-scale floor assembly and the full-scale wall assembly failed structurally afterwards under the applied loading. No hose stream tests were carried out on the full-scale floor and wall assemblies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→