MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132107289

Full-scale experimental study of compartment fires in mass timber structures

2025· article· en· W7132107289 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Alam Marc, Su L. Joseph, Ibrahimli Vusal, Fetterly Noah

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFire testCeiling (cloud)Fire protectionFire safetyTest siteCharringCharFire resistance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Wood Council partnered with key stakeholders to conduct five full-scale fire tests under the Mass Timber Demonstration Fire Test Program (MTDFTP) aimed toward advancing current understanding of compartment fire dynamics, fire safety during construction, and impact of exposed mass timber surfaces on fire severity and duration. The fire tests featured varying degrees of encapsulation, ventilation conditions, and fuel loads, and were performed in a two-storey structure constructed of cross-, dowel- and glued-laminated mass timber elements. The test structure’s configuration and content intended to represent a mass timber building undergoing construction and areas with residential and open-plan office uses in a finished building. All fire tests were conducted without sprinkler protection or firefighter intervention, illustrating rare scenarios wherein suppression operations would be ineffective in controlling the size and spread of a fire. While the results specific for each test are discussed in greater detail, some key observations common to all tests included the following findings: the mass timber test structure remained stable after five full-scale tests, enduring a total of 19 hours of severe fire exposure; the average char depths in the exposed mass timber members were within the CSA O86:19 design allowance; and despite some exposed cross-laminated timber ceiling panels experiencing localized delamination during the cooling phase of the fire, this phenomenon did not result in re-ignition or fire regrowth.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFire effects on concrete materialsFrench-language works237,207