Trends in the US decking market: A national survey of deck and home builders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deck-building industry is going through a period of rapid growth and dramatic change with respect to the types of materials available to build decks. Naturally durable timber species (i.e., redwood, western redcedar, Alaska yellow-cedar and tropical hardwoods) are facing acute competition from engineered decking products, primarily plastic lumber and composite wood products. The results of a 2004 national survey of 156 deck builders and 212 home builders indicate that wood–plastic composites are quickly gaining popularity among deck-building professionals as they increase their market share. This paper investigates deck-building professionals’ use and perceptions of the different decking materials. The study also reveals the usage patterns of the various decking materials in the primary end-use applications (substructure, deck surface and deck accessories). Finally, a comparative assessment of the different decking materials relative to a common set of material attributes is presented. Key words: decking market, deck-building practices, decking material, residential housing, deck builders, homebuilders
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".