MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7009969493

Fire resistance performance of lightweight framed wall assemblies: effects of various parameters, key design considerations and numerical modelling

2003· article· en· W7009969493 on OpenAlexafffundvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersFPInnovations
KeywordsGypsumFraming (construction)Compatibility (geochemistry)Shear (geology)Fire resistanceShear wall
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the effects of a number of design parameters investigated by the authors including the types of cavity insulation, resilient channels, gypsum board thickness, number of gypsum board layers, stud arrangements, stud spacing, type of framing and shear membrane. The results have shown that the main factors that affected the performance of stud wall assemblies were the type of insulation, stud spacing, the number of gypsum board layers, and the addition of a shear membrane. The paper will also describe how the information gathered from this study will be used to benefit practitioners, builders and regulators in choosing suitable assemblies for their designs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFire effects on concrete materialsFrench-language works237,207