MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029998038 · doi:10.1515/hf.2005.077

Effect of climatic variables on chromated copper arsenate (CCA) leaching during above-ground exposure

2005· article· en· W2029998038 on OpenAlexaff
James L. Taylor, Paul Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine Biology and Environmental Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoEngineers Without Borders Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromated copper arsenateLeaching (pedology)Environmental scienceArsenicWeatheringCopperPreservativeChromiumEnvironmental chemistrySoil scienceChemistryMetallurgyMaterials scienceGeologySoil waterGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Until recently, most research on the leaching of preservatives from treated wood was conducted in the laboratory. Although these studies have contributed to the understanding of leaching, the data generated under controlled conditions often do not apply to leaching during natural exposure and weathering. In addition, little is known about the effects of climatic variables and long-term emission rates. This paper examines leaching of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) from lumber exposed above ground to 685 mm of precipitationduring 351 days of natural weathering. Stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed relationships between leaching and a number of treatment and climatic variables, including: species of wood, initial preservative loading, amount of precipitation, average air temperature, average light intensity, pH and duration of rain event. Regression models explained approximately 30% of the variation in chromium and arsenic leaching and 44% of the variation in copper leaching.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicMarine Biology and Environmental ChemistryFrench-language works237,207