Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the utilisation of agricultural residues in panel products has been conducted in many parts ofthe world for a long time, this application has only been considered commercially viable in NorthAmerica only recently. To date, the various North American operations have been making non-structuralstraw panels with a mixed degree of success. Raw material and binder costs plus varioustechnical challenges are making it difficult to achieve commercial viability.<br><br>A more attractive area for straw-based panels to enter is the structural panel market. Here, the resincosts are equivalent to wood based panels and the raw material is more cost competitive with roundwood. Making straw-based oriented strand board has proven to be a daunting task however.Creating an open strand, or split tubule, with any degree of length is difficult; a necessary task toproduce structural panels from straw.<br><br>The Alberta Research Councils Forest Products business unit (ARC) has developed a techniquewhereby a straw tubule can be sheared longitudinally while maintaining a relatively long strand.The result of this technology is an opening up of the straw tube to allow even distribution of thebinder on all strand surfaces. The long strand allows for the development of a high strength tostiffness ratio. This makes the straw based panel comparable to wood-based oriented strand board(OSB) in physical properties at comparable densities.<br><br>This paper will outline the technique of straw splitting and present physical data on straw-based OSBpanels and straw-wood mixed OSB panels. A comparison in performance to wood-based OSB willalso be conducted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".