Comparing Properties of North American Manufactured Particleboard and Medium Density Fiberboard - Part I: Particleboard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to collect up-to-date data on the properties of Canadian and United States-manufactured particleboard (PB) and medium density fiberboard (MDF). Sixty-three manufacturers were contacted and asked to participate in a mechanical and physical properties comparison study. This is the first of two papers presenting the results of the PB evaluation. Samples from five different manufacturing facilities from Canada and the United States were evaluated. Each manufacturing facility provided 5 full-sized, (2440 x 1220 mm) M2-grade panels. These were tested according to North American standards. The performed tests included internal bond (IB), bending and elastic moduli (MOR/MOE), thickness swelling (TS), linear expansion (LE), vertical density profile (VDP), and face and edge screw withdrawal resistance (SWR). Four out of 5 press lines exceeded the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A208.1 (2009) recommendation for IB. Only one of the tested particleboard sets reached the recommended ANSI standard for MOR. Results for the edge SWR showed that none of the tested particleboard manufacturers reached the ANSI recommended value.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".