Criteria for unacceptable damage on wood systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced hygrothermal models can predict temperature and moisture conditions in wall components subjected to actual weather conditions, but damage functions are required to predict consequences for building performance. This paper documents progress towards criteria for unacceptable damage and discusses the work underway to define damage functions. Durability is addressed in Canadian building codes where it impacts safety or health. It, therefore, proposed that damage to building envelopes be considered in two ways. First, strength loss to the system, which determine its level of safety; second, effect on the health of the occupants from unacceptable levels of fungal spores or metabolites entering the living space. Damage functions for strength loss require an improved understanding of the limiting conditions of humidity and temperature for decay and of load distribution in platform-frame construction weakened by decay. Work is underway or planned in each of these areas and some preliminary results on time to establishment of decay in OSB will be presented. Damage functions for health impacts are very complicated to derive because it requires the knowledge of many interacting aspects. These aspects include knowledge of conditions affecting the type and amount of mould in the wall, air leakage or diffusion into the living space, exposure levels from exterior air, other building systems, health risk factors, and threshold levels for spores and metabolites to be determined by medical authorities. These threshold levels are also very difficult to establish because they vary from age group to another end even among individuals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".