MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aluminum-laminated Panels: Physical and Mechanical Properties

2015· article· en· W1567532132 on OpenAlexafffund
Franz Segovia, Pierre Blanchet, Costel Barbuta, Robert Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFPInnovations
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialAluminium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aluminum lamination was performed to improve the physical and mechanical properties of several wood-based composite panels. The panels were aluminum-laminated on two faces in a hot press at 689 kPa and 120 °C for 6 min. Four types of wood-based composites were used as cores, and aluminum 3003 alloy sheets were used for face laminations. Polyurethane adhesive ensured bonding strength between the wood-based composite and the aluminum sheets. The objective was to assess sandwich composite panels made of wood-based composites as a core layer with aluminum-laminated faces. This study evaluated the physical and mechanical properties of these panels. The results show that aluminum-laminated panels had higher dimensional stability (thickness swelling and linear expansion values). Bending properties such as the apparent modulus of elasticity (Eapp) and the modulus of rupture (MOR) were significantly increased with face-lamination. Medium-density fiberboard (MDF) laminate presented an increase of 554% for Eapp and 570% for MOR in comparison with non-laminated MDF panels. The shear edgewise strength for oriented strand board and plywood increased by 44% and 77%, respectively. The results confirm that aluminum-laminated panels have the potential to be used as structural panels in future applications.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207