MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7054527738

Air intrusion vs. air leakage - the dilemma for low sloped mechanically attached membrane roofs

2009· article· en· W7054527738 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakage (economics)IntrusionMembraneAdhesive
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Majority of low-sloped roofs are constructed as conventional membrane roofing assemblies (membrane above insulation). Currently, four types of conventional assemblies are typically in use: 1. Mechanically attached assembly, 2. Loose-laid ballasted assembly, 3. Fully- bonded assembly (insulation fastened and membrane adhered), and 4. Adhesive applied assembly (all components fully adhered). Approximately one fourth of North American low slope/commercial buildings are roofed with mechanically attached assemblies (NRCA 2004) and their popularity continues to grow. The present paper differentiates the air intrusion and air leakage performance of the mechanically attached assembly.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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