Relationship between wood porosity, wood density and methyl methacrylate impregnation rate
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) was used to evaluate the impregnation mechanisms of wood by methyl methacrylate (MMA) through examining the changes in porosity, pore volume, pore size distribution and bulk density of solid wood before and after MMA impregnation. Porosities of MMA-impregnated (hardened) wood samples were lower than those of solid wood samples for six studied species, five hardwoods and one softwood. Densities of hardened wood were enhanced from 45 to 130% depending on the species. The pore volume available for mercury intrusion was shifted from pore d>0.1 µm for solid wood to pore d≤0.1 µm for hardened wood. A pore diameter of 0.1 µm was used as the transition point for MMA impregnation and the increased mercury penetration below this point was attributed to the MMA polymer pore structure. Porosity as an intrinsic property of wood appears to be the main determinant of impregnation rate and polymer retention, especially for porosity with pore diameter >0.1 µm. The results indicate that the MIP technique is an effective tool with which to study the impregnation process.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it