MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770175865 · doi:10.15376/biores.13.1.cogulet

The Multifactorial Aspect of Wood Weathering: A Review Based on a Holistic Approach of wood Degradation Protected by Clear Coating

2017· review· en· W2770175865 on OpenAlexafffund
Antoine Cogulet, Pierre Blanchet, Véronic Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeatheringDegradation (telecommunications)CoatingMaterials scienceComposite materialPulp and paper industryEngineeringGeologyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wood is an abundant and renewable natural resource. Its use is promoted as a way to reduce the carbon footprint in building construction. Wood structures are degraded by their environment due to weathering. This review is a meta-analysis of the main factors of degradation that belong to this phenomenon. The impact of irradiation, the role of water, oxygen, temperature, and colonization by fungi are explained. To protect against these factors, the use of coatings is the most common solution. Since currently the trend is to maintain the grain and the natural color of the wood, the use of transparent coatings is favored. This review presents the main technologies used in clear wood coatings. The durability of this protection against weathering is approached. The whole of knowledge gathered has made it possible to begin a discussion on the multifactorial aspect of wood weathering. Schemes were created to synthesize the synergistic and antagonistic effects between the degradation factors.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations67
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207