A Brief history of the National Buildings Code of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first National Building Code was published in 1941, in time to prove its worth in the bulk of Canada's wartime building program. The new code set out the state of the art building science and engineering knowledge, and received considerable international attention during and after the war. It proved its worth in the design and construction of a great variety of building types across the land.The success of the National Building Code was noted by the federal government, and with the encouragement of General McNaughton, Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, NRC was persuaded to accept the task of maintaining and updating the new regulatory instrument. General McNaughton was actively involved in planning the post-war reconstruction programs in Europe and had observed that those countries that had the best chance of recovering from the destruction were those that had a strong construction industry and an effective building code. To support the work on the National Building Code, NRC agreed to create a new research group, the Division of Building Research.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.013 |
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".