Post-thermal treatment of oriented strandboard (OSB) made from cypress (Cupressus Glauca Lam)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to determine the physical and mechanical properties of oriented strandboard (OSB) using strands of Cupressus glauca Lam., before and after a thermal treatment, as well as to evaluate the susceptibility of the boards to fungi attack. Boards with nominal density of 0.70 g/cm3 were produced with 5% and 8% of urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin. Physical and mechanical properties were evaluated according to ASTM D 1037 (1991) standard and compared with CSA O437.0 and ANSI A.208.1 standards. All mechanical properties were higher than those values required by both standards, except the modulus of elasticity in parallel axis. The thermal treatment slightly reduced the modulus of elasticity and stress at proportional limit, both in perpendicular axis, however improved significantly dimensional stability. Dimensional stability of the treated OSB was improved at the lower resin level but did not reach the maximum value required by the Canadian standard. Biological assay showed that heat-treated cypress OSB exposed to P. sanguineus reduced mass loss from 39% to 50%, while for G. trabeum the reduction was from 40% to 49%. Post thermal treatment of manufactured OSB (190ºC, 720 s) can be the recommended method to reduce the hygroscopicity without great effect on mechanical properties and to protect panels against these fungi.
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".