Variations in Airtightness of Houses Constructed with Polyethylene and ADA Air Barrier Systems Over a
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Periodic airtightness tests were carried out on twenty-four new houses over a three-year period to evaluate their air barrier systems and to search for evidence of air barrier degradation. Ten of the houses were constructed with polyeth-ylene air barriers while the remaining fourteen used an early version of the Airtight Drywall Approach (ADA). The twenty-four project houses were architecturally sim-ilar and of approximately equal size and general layout; stucco was the predominate exterior wall finish. All were exposed to similar terrain shielding. The study found that the airtightness of the polyethylene air barrier houses re-mained stable over their respective monitoring periods. Two of the ten houses dem-onstrated possible, albeit slight, evidence of airtightness degradation, however, the magnitude of these changes was small and judged to not be of practical significance. For example, all but one of the polyethylene houses met the airtightness requirements of the Canadian R-2000 Standard for energy efficient housing at the end of their monitoring periods. With respect to the critical issue of air barrier degradation, no evidence was found to indicate that polyethylene is unsuitable for use as an air barrier material in residential construction. The airtightness of the fourteen ADA houses also remained stable over the moni-toring period. Six of the fourteen houses displayed possible, but once again slight, evidence of airtightness degradation, however, the magnitude of the changes was also small and not of practical significance. All fourteen ADA houses met the airtightness *This paper contams some material previously published in a report prepared for Energy,
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".