WOOD-ADHESIVE INTERFACE CHARACTERIZATION AND MODELING IN ENGINEERED WOOD FLOORING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adhesive films used in layered wood-based composites have a significant impact on moisture movement and must be considered in models of such products. The objective of this study was to characterize the wood-adhesive interface and determine its impact on the hygromechanical behavior of engineered wood flooring (EWF). The radial water vapor diffusion coefficient and the coefficients of moisture expansion were determined for sugar maple wood, crosslinked polyviny1 acetate adhesive film (XPVAc), and the wood-adhesive interface. Sugar maple wood had the highest diffusion coefficient at 1.66 x 10-11 m2 · s-1 followed by the wood-adhesive interface at 5.73 x 10-12 m2 · s-1, and the free XPVAc film at 4.18 x 10-12 m2 · s-1. The coefficient of tangential moisture expansion of the sugar maple wood-adhesive interface was found to be 4 x 10-3 (%MC)-1 compared with 3 x 10-3 (%MC)-1 for sugar maple wood in the tangential direction, and 3 x 10-3 (%MC)-1 for the XPVAc film. Finite element modeling of EWF hygromechanical cupping did not show significant differences between hygromechanical cupping calculated with and without interface effects.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".