Bibliographic record
Abstract
A minimum standard that sets the airtightness for building enve lopes does not exist but is quite necessary. This article outlines the need for setting this minimum standard and provides a summary of the myriad of recommendations, standards, and state-of-the-art projects. It presents an overview based on a compilation and exami-nation of the results of studies, standards, codes, tested buildings, and recommendations for whole-building airtightness in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe as tested by building pres-surization test methods.1 The data was collected through a survey conducted from mid-2003 through the beginning of 2004. Why an Airtightness Standard? A number of reasons exist for why air leakage should be minimized in the design, specifi cation, and construction of a build-ing. Good air barrier materials and systems are necessary to reduce air leakage. Following are some of the reasons cited by industry members and organi-zations that support the need for good air barriers. Code requirements. Most codes and building standards have been created in response to catastrophic events. Plumb-ing codes, fi re codes, and standards for structural materials and designs devel-oped after serious loss of life mandated that these systems be regulated. Many types of building failures are related to air leakage. The recent increase in health problems related to mold and mildew and indoor air quality make this the next most likely area for signifi cant code reform. Indoor air quality. Recently, a major increase in moisture-related building failures has occurred where mold and mildew growth resulting from building
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 | 0.035 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.242 | 0.103 |
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".