Twenty-Year Performance of Decking with Two Levels of Preservative Penetration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In 1991 a field test was established at two locations in Canada to assess the longevity of deck boards that were either untreated or pressure treated with two levels of preservative penetration. These penetration levels were (1) single incised with 80 percent ≥ 5 mm and (2) unincised. Minidecks were prepared from each species/treatment variable and visually inspected for decay after 5, 9, 15, and 20 years of exposure. After 9 years the treated boards were virtually free of fungal attack, regardless of the preservative penetration, while decay of the untreated boards was moderate to severe. After 15 years there was still almost no decay in the treated boards, while decay in untreated boards had progressed significantly. At the 20-year inspection all untreated decks, with the exception of western red cedar (Thuja plicata), would have had to be replaced due to decay of multiple boards, while all chromated copper arsenate–treated decks remained serviceable regardless of preservative penetration. Based on published work showing how shell treatments with copper-containing preservatives protect decking even with checks penetrating the treated zone, these data are expected to be also relevant to newer preservatives with low levels of mobile copper.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".