MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488903684 · doi:10.15376/biores.7.3.2986-2995

Performance of zinc borate-treated oriented structural straw board against mold fungi, decay fungi, and termites – A preliminary trial

2012· article· en· W1488903684 on OpenAlexafffund
Guangping Han, Wanli Cheng, Mark J. Manning, Pierre Eloy

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsMoldStrawZincMaterials scienceBoronHorticultureBotanyComposite materialBiologyChemistryAgronomyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of zinc borate (ZB)-treated oriented structural straw board (OSSB) against mold fungi, decay fungi, and termites was examined in standard laboratory evaluations. OSSB was fabricated with split wheat straw strands and diphenylmethane diisocyante (pMDI) resin. The ZB was added during panel manufacture to achieve preservative levels (wt.%) of 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0%, and 3.0%. It was observed that after a four-week exposure to mold fungi all samples had some mold coverage, but the coverage on the ZB-treated samples was significantly lighter compared to the untreated OSSB. Decay test showed that the weight losses of ZB-treated OSSB blocks at 1.0% and 1.5% levels were significantly reduced compared to the untreated OSSB and solid wood controls, indicating superior performance of ZB-treated OSSB against decay fungi. The termite mortality indicated that none of the termites were alive at the conclusion of the test for ZB-treated OSSB. The results from these specific laboratory studies demonstrated that ZB retentions of 1.5% and greater provide performance against decay fungi and termites for OSSB panels. In addition, untreated OSSB has high susceptibility to mold due to the chemical features of wheat straw and incomplete removal of kernels.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207