HIRF – SEPARATION OF GLAZED OPENINGS DISCUSSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amendments to the Alberta Building Code 2006 addressing high-intensity residential fires include restrictions on the size and spacing of individual glazed openings in an exposing building face. As a part of the effort to reduce the impacts of high-intensity residential fires, the size and spacing of individual glazed openings in an exposing building face was considered. In the event of a fire, an over-sized glazed opening or two openings close enough to one another to effectively function as one large opening would result in a high heat flux through the openings, increasing the exposure of the adjacent building. While the HIRF amendments served to address this issue by requiring individual openings to have their areas restricted and be spaced at least 2 m apart, it was not the intent to fully eliminate all closely-spaced windows. In situations where the limiting distance is not more than 2 m or the building is not sprinklered throughout, the Code now stipulates that individual glazed openings must be separated from one another by at least 2 m. Additionally, the area of an individual glazed opening cannot exceed 50 % of the maximum allowable aggregate area of openings in the exposing building face (found from Table 9.10.15.4.). As a result of the Code changes, designers and safety codes officers have inquired as to whether there are circumstances that would permit glazed openings to be spaced closer than 2 m apart, specifically when the collective area of the closely-spaced openings is no greater than the area of an individual glazed opening described in Sentence 9.10.15.4.(3). This STANDATA has been developed to clarify whether or not such a glazed opening configuration is permitted.
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 | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.009 |
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".