Densification of wood veneers combined with oil-heat treatment. Part II: Hygroscopicity and mechanical properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to achieve high mechanical performance and improved dimensional stability, densification combined with . was determined. OHT at 180, 200, and 220ºC for 1, 2, and 3 hours was applied to densified Aspen (Populus tremuloides) veneers. OHT was found to be an efficient treatment to reduce the hygroscopicity of densified aspen veneers, although OHT had a negative impact on Brinell hardness. However, due to the contribution of densification, the hardness of oil-heat treated veneers was still two to three times higher than that of non-densified veneers. Similar results were found for tensile strength. Bending strength increased slightly at low OHT temperature, and then decreased at high temperature. Bending strength of oil-heat treated densified veneer samples was higher than that of non-densified ones. No significant effect of OHT was found on tensile MOE, but bending MOE increased after OHT. Compared to OHT duration, OHT temperature had a larger impact on densified wood hygroscopicity and mechanical properties.
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".