MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7044019229

Understanding air barriers in mechanically attached low slope roofing assemblies for wind uplift

2006· article· en· W7044019229 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakage (economics)AirflowFlow resistanceWind speedLift (data mining)Asphalt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind flow over a mechanically attached roofing assembly (MAA) can lift the membrane and cause it to flutter or 'billow'. Air leakage into the assembly from building interior is a concern for wind uplift resistance of MAA. MAA is a growing segment of the low-slope roofing market however there is no widely accepted standard specification or test method to quantify air leakage through them. An experimental procedure has been under development for quantifying the air leakage rate of MAA. Assemblies with two barrier types, conventional polyethylene film and reinforced modified bituminous film, were evaluated. Data clearly indicates that MAA with barriers had lower air leakage rate than without. The air leakage impact on wind uplift resistance has also been evaluated under dynamic environment. Assemblies with barriers performed better than the assemblies without one.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAeolian processes and effectsFrench-language works237,207