MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019275398 · doi:10.5539/mas.v3n11p2

Enhancing the Properties of Mahang (Macaranga spp.) Wood through Acrylic Treatment in Combination with Crosslinker

2009· article· en· W2019275398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aik Fei Ang, Zaidon Ashaari, Edi Suhaimi Bakar, S. Mohd Hamami, Uyup Mohd Khairun Anwar

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCompressive strengthPolymerizationComposite materialSwellingYoung's modulusFlexural strengthAbsorption of waterModulusAcrylic resinMethyl methacrylateStiffnessPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Macaranga spp. (mahang) was treated with methyl methacrylate (MMA) in combination with a crosslinker trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate (TMPTMA). Polymerization was carried out by catalyst heat treatment. A fairly consistent acrylic retention was found in the wood when treated with or without crosslinker. Polymerization of MMA is at maximum with 1% crosslinker and beyond this concentration the polymerization decreased. The dimensional stability in terms of anti-swelling efficiency (ASE) was determined and found to be improved on treatment. Water absorption was also found to be decreased considerably for treated wood. Mechanical strength in terms of modulus of rupture (MOR), compressive stress and hardness were improved, but the stiffness (modulus of elasticity) did not change. In terms of specific strength (strength to density ratio), the treated material is less stiffer and less strength in lateral direction compared to untreated wood. However, the specific compressive strength perpendicular to the grain and hardness of the treated material were superior compared with the untreated.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207