Fire and acoustics research on load-bearing steel stud walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IRC's Fire Risk Management Program, working with nine industry partners, conducted 14 full-scale standard tests to study the effect of various parameters on the fire resistance of load-bearing steel-stud wall assemblies. Test parameters included the spacing of steel studs; the number of stud rows (i.e., single- versus double-stud walls); the number of gypsum board layers (i.e., one versus two layers of protection); the use of cross-bracing; the replacement of one layer of gypsum board with an oriented strand board (OSB) shear membrane; the use of resilient metal channels to support the gypsum board; and the type of insulation used in the wall cavity. Each full-scale assembly was exposed to a standard fire in a propane-fired vertical furnace until it failed in one of three ways: structural failure; exceeding a specified temperature; flame or gas penetration. In all cases, the wall assemblies failed structurally. The unexposed surface temperature at this time was below the temperature criteria for failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".