Dimensional stability of MDF panels produced from heat-treated fibres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objectives of this study were to improve the dimensional stability of medium-density fibreboard (MDF) by heat treatment and to determine the effects of the treatment on the mechanical properties and vertical density profile of the panels. MDF panels were produced from untreated fibres and fibres treated at two different temperatures (150 and 180°C) for 15, 30 and 60 min. Panels produced from heat-treated fibres showed an important reduction in thickness swelling and water absorption after water soaking. Linear expansion and contraction were not improved by the treatment. Thickness swelling after repeated cycles of adsorption and desorption increased, while thickness shrinkage under the same conditions was not changed by the treatment. The springback of panels after repeated cycles of adsorption and desorption was not improved, either. Statistical analyses did not show significant differences in the modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity and internal bond strength of panels following heat treatment. No significant effect was found for the vertical density profile of panels following heat treatment, although the profiles for panels produced from heat-treated fibres were flatter than those produced from untreated fibres.
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) | 0.001 | 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".