MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981707833

Experimental procedure and uncertainty analysis of a guarded hot box method to determine the thermal transmission coefficient of skylights and sloped glazing

2000· article· en· W6981707833 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkylightGlazingCalibrationThermalHeat transfer coefficientHeat transferTransmission (telecommunications)Heat transmissionUncertainty analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A laboratory test procedure and a guarded hot box facility used to determine the thermal transmission coefficient of skylights are described. Skylights can be tested at an angle of inclination that can be varied from 20 degrees to 90 degrees off the horizontal. The experimental procedure, to determine the skylight R-value, is based on a correlation for the convective heat transfer on the warm side and the weather side of the test specimen. This correlation is obtained from calibration measurements using a calibrated transfer standard (CTS) in the inclined position. The results show that the convective heat transfer along an inclined CTS is substantially different from that along a vertical CTS. Three-dimensional simulations of the conductive heat transfer within the CTS assembly are found to be in good agreement with the experimental results. A complete uncertainty analysis for the calibration experiments and for skylight testing is presented. It is found that the experimental relative uncertainty associated with the thermal transmission coefficient of the test specimen without the frame is of the order of 6%.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicHistory of Science and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207