Long-Term Performance of Engineered Wood Flooring with Oriented Strand Board Substrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plywood is widely used as a substrate in engineered wood flooring (EWF) construction. While the Canadian EWF industry largely relies on Baltic birch plywood (BBP), the development of an alternative substrate is clearly desirable. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term performance of EWF made with an oriented strand board (OSB) substrate designed to deliver a higher than normal internal bond. Three-layer OSB panels were made from a mixture of 90 percent aspen (Populus tremuloides) and 10 percent paper birch (Betula papyrifera). Three adhesive configurations were used in the manufacture of specialty OSB panels: 100 percent liquid phenol formaldehyde (PF) resin, a mixture of 60 percent liquid PF resin and 40 percent powder PF resin, and 100 percent polydiphenylmethane diisocyanate (pMDI) resin. The performance of these three specialty OSB products was studied. Five types of substrate were used in the manufacture of EWF: BBP, sheathing OSB, and the three specialty OSBs. A polyurethane adhesive was selected to bond the surface layers to the substrates. The result of this experimental study indicated no significant difference between the long-term performance of the OSB substrate made with pMDI resin and that of the BBP substrate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".