Dimensional stability of wood–polymer composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wood–polymer composites (WPC) were prepared by impregnation of polymeric monomers in wood and in situ polymerization. Three polymeric chemicals were chosen for this study: methyl methacrylate (MMA), hydroxyethylene methacrylate (HEMA), and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA). The effects of polymeric monomers and their combinations on moisture adsorption (M), anti–moisture adsorption efficiency (AME), liquid water uptake (D), water repellency efficiency (WRE), longitudinal, radial, tangential, and volumetric swelling properties (S) after soaking, and antiswelling efficiency (ASE) were investigated. It was found that M was different for different methacrylate combinations and depended not only on the composition of the impregnants, but also on wood properties. Liquid water uptake was similar regardless of the formulation of the WPC. Wood–polymer composites with high MMA content displayed enhanced dimensional stabilities, but WPCs with high HEMA content did not. Tangential and volumetric ASEs were strongly dependent on the type of treatment. Mold growth tests showed that wood treated with HEMA alone had no surface mold growth, and wood treated with MMA alone also showed less mold growth than did the control samples. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl PolymSci 102: 5085–5094, 2006
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) | 0.002 | 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".