On the quality of residential ventilation systems in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The residential ventilation market in Canada is defined by the country’s geography and its relationship with the USA. Codes and standards have been developed in Canada to unify the approach across the country and coordinate with the USA market, however due to regional variations (partially a result of the political structure) the “model” building code developed at the national level is implemented at the provincial/territorial level and can subsequently be modified at the municipal level. This can lead to regional variations in code requirements, e.g. the predominant use of exhaust-only systems in Ontario. The long heating season and cold winters have driven construction standards in Canada to produce air-tight buildings as a matter of course. The current energy code (2012) states that the worst case air change rate at 50 Pa for new build is 3.2 and if the air barrier system has been constructed to a higher standard (prescriptively defined) 2.5 air changes per hour, or the tested value can be used. Given these levels of air tightness were being achieved in the 1980’s it became apparent that deliberate mechanical ventilation was required. This need had been introduced into the building code 1980 but was refined and expanded through 1995 (the code is updated on a five year cycle). In 1991 the mechanical ventilation standard (CSA F-326-M91) was published covering design, installation and commissioning. The rate of new construction in Canada is such that almost 25% of single family homes have been constructed since 1990. Combining this with the code requirements for mechanical ventilation systems it can be concluded that the residential ventilation industry is well developed and mature. Future refinements will be made as our understanding of health and ventilation is further developed and as energy constraints become more pertinent.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".