MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522890224

Laboratory manufacture of high moisture southern pine strandboard bonded with three tannin adhesive types

2004· article· en· W2522890224 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Sellers, George D. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Products Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdhesiveTanninMaterials scienceComposite materialWattle (construction)MoistureParticle boardOriented strand boardWood flourHardwoodSwellingChemistryBotanyFood scienceLayer (electronics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three types of tannin-based adhesives (wattle, quebracho, and radiata pine) were examined as binders for strandboard panels at two binder solids (10% and 13%) application levels. The strand moisture content (MC) was 6 percent or higher with an objective of having an out-of-press panel MC of 6 percent or higher. Characteristics (viscosity, stability, and gel time) of the tannin solutions and final tannin adhesives with cross-linking compounds are described. The strandboard panels were tested for internal bond, bending properties, durability after an accelerated aging test, and thickness swell after exposure to water. The preliminary panels bonded with 10 percent binder solids and 5.5 to 6.5 percent MC strands showed some promising test results, with some exceptions meeting or exceeding Canadian standards for strandboards. The final series of panels had varied physical/mechanical test results, due in part to strand MCs that were as high as 8.6 percent. Further work is suggested on fine-tuning the cross-linking compounds and the press processing parameters for tannin adhesives for strandboard manufacture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Products JournalSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207