HIRF – FLOOR-TO-FLOOR FIRE COMPARTMENTS DISCUSSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amendments to the Alberta Building Code 2006 addressing high-intensity residential fires include requirements for the minimum spacing between individual glazed openings located on the same exposing building face and within the same fire compartment. 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 by a minimum of 2 m from one another when they are located within the same fire compartment, as provided in Sentence 9.10.15.4.(4). The rationale behind not applying the 2 m separation requirement to two glazed openings within separate fire compartments is that the interior partitions that form the fire compartments provide an acceptable level of resistance to the spread of fire. Consequently, in the event of a fire, the glazed opening in the adjacent fire compartment will not contribute to the heat flux emanating from the exposing building face of the house until the interior partition is compromised and both fire compartments become engaged in the fire. A fire compartment is defined as a space in a building that is separated from the remainder of the building by a fire separation having a required fire-resistance rating. Floor assemblies in single-family dwellings, however, do not have a “required ” fireresistance rating, which would seemingly prohibit this type of separation from being considered as creating two separate fire compartments. This STANDATA has been developed to clarify whether a floor assembly can serve to create two separate fire compartments, thereby allowing glazed openings on opposing sides of the floor assembly to be spaced closer than 2 m apart.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.010 |
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".