Protection of untreated wood by adjacent CCA-treated wood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sandwich test units with two treated outer boards and one untreated center board were exposed at several test sites as part of a collaborative evaluation of aboveground test methods for a task force of the American Wood-Preservers' Association technical committees. Examination of material at a site in Vancouver, British Columbia, revealed that the untreated center boards between outer boards treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) were decaying more slowly compared to untreated center boards sandwiched between untreated outer boards or boards treated with 3-iodo-2-propynyl butyl carbamate (IPBC). Nondestructive analysis of the surfaces of the center boards provided estimated copper metal loadings of 0.6 mg/g wood on surfaces in contact with boards at 2.0 kg/m 3 CCA and 0.8 mg/g Cu on surfaces in contact with boards at 4.0 kg/m 3 CCA. Arsenic and chromium peaks were not detected. These results suggest that low levels of copper readily migrate during service and such movement can protect untreated wood exposed during checking from colonization by wood-rotting basidiomycetes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".