Reinforcement of Lignin-Based Phenol-Formaldehyde Adhesive with Nano-Crystalline Cellulose (NCC): Curing Behavior and Bonding Property of Plywood
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The curing behavior of lignin-based phenol-formaldehyde (LPF) resin with different contents of nano-crystalline cellulose (NCC) was studied by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) at different heating rates (5, 10 and 20°C/min) and the bonding property was evaluated by the wet shear strength and wood failure of two-ply plywood panels after soaking in water (48 hours at room temperature and followed by 1-hour boiling). The test results indicated that the NCC content had little influence on the peak temperature, activation energy and the total heat of reaction of LPF resin at 5 and 10°C/min. But at 20°C/min, LPF0.00% (LPF resin without NCC) showed the highest total heat of reaction, while LPF0.25% (LPF resin containing 0.25% NCC content) and LPF0.50% (LPF resin containing 0.50% NCC content) gave the lowest value. The wet shear strength was affected by the NCC content to a certain extent. With regard to the results of one-way analysis of variance, the bonding quality could be improved by NCC and the optimum NCC content ranged from 0.25% to 0.50%. The wood failure was also affected by the NCC content, but the trend with respect to NCC content was not clear.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it