MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7051863898

The practice of testing translucent facades for air and water permeability based on experience in Canada and the USA and the applicability of this experience to the realities of the Russian Federation

2024· article· en· W7051863898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRussian federationFacadeGlazingNational standardTest (biology)Ceiling (cloud)GOST (hash function)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Current article summarizes North American practices of standard test methods for exterior glazing applications, such as curtain walls, windows and compare these methods with practices exists in Russian Federation.Materials and methods. It was assumed analysis of the testing principles for curtain walls and windows in Canada and USA, based on the long-term experience of these works and their tests. This article also contains comparison with the existing testing methods in Russian Federation, based on the recently published GOST 70941–2023 “Translucent facade construction. Methods of determination of water permeability under natural conditions”. There is a description of the recommended equipment for testing in a lab and construction site.Results. The article describes required methods of testing, used equipment, safety rules during test development on construction site.Conclusions. The absence of the uniform construction site testing standard for the curtain wall and windows in the Russian Federation can create a situation very similar to that once arose in Vancouver, Canada in the beginning of 90th last century, when a lot of building facades starts leaking (leaky condo in Vancouver) and do not comply with the main purpose of the exterior skin of building — to separate exterior environment from interior and provide to public favorable conditions for living in the building. Unfortunately newly developed GOST 70941–2023 more looks like the description of the facades washing before occupancy, than provides engineering approaches for testing facades and determine resistance to withstand with applicable environmental loads on buildings (wind and rain). It is time, when it is necessary to develop uniform standard for all contractors, who builds curtain wall and windows and how these building skin structures suppose to prevent air or water leakage to the interior of the buildings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→