under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098. Suite Ventilation Characteristics of Current Canadian Mid- and High-Rise Residential Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper characterizes ventilation in residential suites located in ten buildings in major metropolitan areas of Canada. All buildings were between six and thirty-two stories tall and were built between 1990 and 1995. The key findings from field performance tests of these buildings were: 1. Corridor supply airflows usually did not meet design flows. 2. Makeup air paths for suite exhaust were not properly designed. 3. Suite access door leakage was highly variable and usually did not meet smoke control requirements. 4. Airflow from the corridor through the suite access door leakage appeared to be the primary ventilation air supply for suites. 5. Suites were usually well-ventilated, but some were marginally- or under-ventilated. 6. Poor pressure control often allowed transfer air from one suite to another. Inter-suite transfer air fractions ranged from 0 to 45%, with an average of 19%. In summary, this work showed suite ventilation can be highly influenced by corridor supply flows, by the treatment of corridor access doors, and by transfer airflows. As a result, suite ventilation at any given time in current mid- and high-rise residential buildings is very difficult to predict. To ensure suite ventilation performs as intended under all operating conditions, the building industry needs to address the identified problems through improved ventilation design, operation, and maintenance practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.341 | 0.151 |
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".