Properties comparison of North American manufactured particleboard and medium density fiberboard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of Canadian and US particleboard (PB) and medium density fiberboard (MDF) manufacturers was performed to identify potential candidates for the mechanical and physical properties comparison study. Sixty-three plants across Canada and the United States were contacted and 19 plants participated in the survey. In order to obtain and compare data on mechanical and physical properties of boards from PB and MDF manufacturers, samples were collected from 10 different manufacturing facilities across Canada and the United States (5 PB and 5 MDF). The performed tests included internal bond (IB), bending and elastic moduli (MOR/MOE), thickness swell (TS), linear expansion (LE), vertical density profile (VDP), and face and edge screw withdrawal resistance (SWR). Each manufacturing facility provided 5 full-sized (2440 by 1220 mm) panels that were tested according to North American standards. For particleboard, 4 out of 5 press lines exceeded the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A208.1-2009 recommendation for IB. Only one of the tested particleboard sets reached the recommended ANSI standard for MOR. Results for the edge SWR showed that none of the tested particleboard manufacturers reached the ANSI recommended value. For MDF, all but one press line exceeded the ANSI standard A208.2-2009 recommended minimum value for MOE. The results for the modulus of rupture for MDF showed two manufacturers exceeding the recommended value, and three failing to meet the recommended value.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".