Performance of Vacuum Insulation Panel Constructed With Fiber–Powder Composite as Core Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buildings consume about 40 % of the national energy requirement in a developed country, and the addition of thermal insulation in building envelope construction is considered as the most primary and effective way to reduce energy consumption in buildings. Recent upgrades of energy codes in Europe and North America have also recommended higher levels of insulation in building envelopes. All these factors have provided a fresh impetus for the search for high-performance thermal insulation. Among various nonconventional insulations being introduced in the construction industry, as the next-generation thermal insulation, vacuum insulation panel (VIP) appears to be one of the most promising insulation materials, with the highest thermal insulating capacity (up to 10 times more thermally efficient than conventional thermal insulation materials). Quite naturally, the application of VIP in building envelope construction offers many advantages such as increased energy efficiency of exterior building envelopes, thinner wall thickness, optimum space use, reduced material consumption, etc. However, the acceptance of VIP in the construction industry is critically dependent on the cost and long-term performance. The expensive core material (e.g., precipitated silica or fumed silica) is one of the main reasons for the higher cost of VIPs that offer a satisfactory long-term service life in building envelope applications. To overcome this cost barrier for the mass application of VIPs in the building industry, researchers at the National Research Council Canada – Construction Portfolio have developed a low-cost fiber–powder composite core material for the VIP. This paper briefly introduces the concept of fiber–powder composite and present performance assessment data from laboratory-scale trial VIPs (300 mm by 300 mm) constructed with fiber–powder composite core materials.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".