Flax Shive and Hemp Hurd Residues as Alternative Raw Material for Particleboard Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flax shive and hemp hurd residues were characterized, and the feasibility of manufacturing three-layered particleboards was evaluated using 2.5% and 5% polymeric diphenyl methane diisocyanate resin loadings. The flax shive and hemp hurd residues had lower bulk densities and higher aspect ratios compared with the wood residues. Their higher aspect ratios offered greater overlap in bonding, which led to consistently higher bending properties that exceeded the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) requirements for low-density (LD2) particleboard and, in some cases, medium-density (M2) particleboard. Because of their particle geometry, the flax shive and hemp hurd particleboards also showed minimal linear expansion with changes in the moisture content at 20 ± 3 °C and between 50% and 90% relative humidity. The high absorption capacity of the flax shive and hemp hurd residues resulted in higher thickness swell and water absorption properties than the wood residues. The results indicated that low-density flax shive and hemp hurd particleboards (500 to 620 kg/m3) can be manufactured using isocyanate resin quantities as low as 2.5% to produce panels that conform to ANSI specifications with a greater mechanical performance than that of wood residue particleboards.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".