A New test method for quantifying air leakage of a mechanically-attached roofing assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air intrusion into roof assemblies is a concern for wind uplift resistance and life cycle performance of roofs. Airflow control is usually achieved by the installation of a barrier/retarder in the roofing assembly. Even though the concept of air barrier/retarder and air barrier systems has been around for decades, it is still pretty much a new notion to the roofing industry. Currently, there are no widely accepted standard specifications or test methods to determine the air leakage through a roof. An experimental procedure has been under development at National Research Council of Canada to quantify the air intrusion into roof assemblies. As part of this investigation, five roofing assembly configurations were quantified for air leakage. Relative performance of the air retarding effect of the five assemblies indicated that assemblies with a barrier/retarder had lower air leakage rates than without. Measured air leakage rates are compared with the existing codes of practice and standards. This comparison clearly demonstrates the significance of air intrusion into the roofing assembly and the necessity of a standardized air leakage test method for the roofing industry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".