FIRE RESISTANCE TESTS ON CELLULOSE AND GLASS FIBER INSULATED
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents the results of 2 full-scale fire resistance tests conducted on load-bearing gypsum board protected, wood stud shear wall assemblies. The wall assembly had an asymmetrical installation (1x2) with a layer of gypsum board on both exposed and unexposed sides and a shear membrane as a base layer on the unexposed side of the wood stud frame. The gypsum board used was 12.7 mm thick Type X and the shear membranes used were of 12.7 mm and 8.5 mm thick plywood. The insulation used were of cellulose and glass fibre type. These two tests were conducted to determine the effect of insulation and of shear membrane thickness on the fire resistance of gypsum board protected, wood stud shear wall assemblies. A discussion of these results in relation to other similar tests that were conducted previously, are presented in the paper. i WOOD STUD SHEAR WALLS V. K. R. Kodur, M. A. Sultan, J.C.Latour, P. Leroux and R.C.Monette ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research is part of a consortium project on the fire resistance and sound performance of wall assemblies - Phase II, among the following partners: . Canadian Wood Council . Canadian Home Builders Association . Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute . Forintek Canada Corp.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".