The suitability of continuous laminated veneer lumber production to some Canadian wood species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laminated veneer lumber was made by gluing six layers of 1/4-inch veneer assembled with grain directions parallel and all the tight veneer surfaces outward. A specially modified phenol-formaldehyde plywood resin was used. Shear strength and wood failure of specimens tested dry, and after accelerated aging, were used to evaluate bond quality. Limited samples of broadleaf maple laminated veneer lumber were used to demonstrate that, with central glueline just reaching 240°F before opening the press, adequate bonds were formed. These were not significantly different from those produced with a central glueline temperature reaching 300°F. Tests of specimens from small panels of broadleaf maple, black cottonwood, and sugar maple showed that a gluespread of at least 42.5 pounds per thousand square feet of single glueline (42.5 lb/MSGL) was required. At this spread, a central glueline temperature of 240°F and platen temperature of 350°F, adequate bond quality was produced at platen pressures of 200 psi, 100 psi and 275 psi for broadleaf maple, black cottonwood and sugar maple, respectively. Based on the press schedules developed with the small panels, black cottonwood, sugar maple, and white spruce, continuous laminated veneer lumber boards were manufactured, using the process described by Bohlen in 1972. Only the white spruce boards produced adequate bonds. Those of black cottonwood and sugar maple failed due to dry-out of glue adjacent to the platens. Although suitable pressing conditions were worked out for single-pressed boards, irrespective of wood species, the glue would need further modification for the hardwoods studied to be used for continuously produced laminated veneer lumber.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".