Properties of Commercial Kraft Paper Honeycomb Furniture Stock Panels Conditioned under 65 and 95 Percent Relative Humidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physical and mechanical properties of a range of commercially produced kraft paper honeycomb stock panels were assessed to provide technical information of interest to primary and secondary manufacturers and product end users. Five groups of four replicate panels each 44.45 mm in thickness were fabricated by Panolite Industries, Lac Megantic, Quebec, from unlaminated 6.3- and 9.5-mm-thick medium-density fiberboard (MDF) and particleboard (PB), and 3.2-mm-thick veneered hardboard (HB). At 65 percent relative humidity (RH) sandwiches made from MDF were superior in mechanical properties to those made from PB. Marked differences in flexural properties were found for 3.2-mm veneered HB; this type of facing and the sandwich structure made from it is significantly greater in flexure when the wood veneer runs parallel to the long axis of the panel. For PB and MDF facings, sandwiches were stronger and stiffer if made from thicker facing material (9.5 mm), and there was a small but significant effect of honeycomb ribbon orientation: an orientation parallel to the long axis of the panel/test specimen gives the sandwich greater resistance to deformation under load. Conditioning facing materials and sandwich specimens under 95 percent RH over 45 days caused loss of strength properties of up to 50 percent, especially for 6.3-mm MDF.
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) | 0.003 | 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".