Permeability of OSB. Part I. The Effects of Core Fines Content and Mat Density on Transverse Permeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the effects of density and core fines content on the transverse permeability, K, of oriented strandboard (OSB), with the aim of using fines generated during the log stranding process to improve mat permeability and possibly press efficiency. Forty-five OSB panels were made in the laboratory containing five levels of fines content (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%) and compressed to three target density levels (low—450, medium—550, and high—650 kg/m3). Both density and fines content and their interaction significantly influenced Kcore, which increased exponentially with fines content at each density level. Above 75% fines, density level no longer had any significant effect on Kcore, indicating that as the mat is compressed, the presence of fines maintains a more interconnected void system through which gas can pass. The rate of heat transfer to the core was affected by board thickness but contrary to expectations, not by fines content. Fines content did, however, affect the accumulation of gas pressure in the high target density heavily compressed boards; maximum core gas pressure was significantly reduced if core fines content was greater than 50%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".