MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimum Research of Hot-Pressing Technology of the Composite Board with Waste Wood and Paper

2011· article· en· W2155959957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hui Chen, Zhigao Liu, Juncheng Chen, Qiuhui Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPressingHot pressingComposite numberMaterials scienceComposite materialYoung's modulusHot pressFlexural strengthEngineered woodOriented strand boardWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the rise of global low-carbon economy with the purpose of leveraging waste wood resources efficiently, waste wood and paper was processed into new type wood-based panels. The hot-pressing technology of the 9 mm composite board with waste wood and paper was studied through an orthogonal experiment, and the effects of resin content, hot-pressing temperature, hot-pressing time and the mass ratio of waste wood and paper were discussed. Results indicated that effects of resin content on the MOR (Modulus of rupture), MOE (modulus of elasticity) and 24h TS (thickness swelling) of the composite board were remarkable, while effects of hot-pressing temperature, hot-pressing time and the mass ratio of waste wood and paper were slight. Based on the quality indicators of MOR, it was found that the optimum condition of hot-pressing for the 9 mm composite board with waste wood and paper was estimated to include resin content of 19%, hot-pressing temperature of 120 °C, hot-pressing time of 12.5min, and the mass ratio of waste wood and paper of 7 to 13. Under these conditions, the composite board could be used as new materials for furniture, interior decoration and packaging. Key words: Waste wood; Waste paper; Composite board; Hot-pressing technology

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.014
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciencesSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207