Field investigation and laboratory testing of exposed vinyl roof systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999, a major manufacturer of thermoplastic membranes set out to 'quantify and qualify' how their oldest roofs in the United States and Canada were performing. This information was critical for their Life Cycle Cost Data. The process was as follows: This manufacturer reviewed their internal project data base and project files to determine the oldest project in each of their regions. The regions attempted to contact each owner of the building. Approximately 70% of the owners were contacted because some of the buildings were vacant or torn down. A survey was sent to the building owners of 70 of their oldest projects in the U.S and Canada (range 17-22 years old). Some surveys were filled out over the telephone. The response rate was 63%. All surveys were collected and statistics created. In 2001, the manufacturer sampled 25 of these projects in all regions and climates and invited roof consultants and architects to participate in field investigations and roof sampling. The specific roofs sampled in these different regions and climates were selected solely as a matter of convenience. That is, the roofs were samples when owners provided the manufacturer permission to do so and when the costs of accessing the selected roofs were reasonable.Samples were packaged and sent to the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). The NRCC tested samples according to ASTM D4434 [1] (where appropriate) for thickness, tensile strength, elongation, linear dimensional change, low temperature flexibility and seam strength. It should be noted that D4434 [1] was established in 1985 and was the first ASTM standard for any single ply roof membrane in the U.S. Most of the roofs sampled were installed before the standard even existed. All of the roofs investigated and sampled were found to be in good shape. No immediate maintenance or repairs were needed. After sampling all of the existing roof membranes could be easily patched by hot air welding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".