Gas permeability of fiberboard mats as a function of density and fiber size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gas permeability and structure of fiberboard mats are essential properties because of their impact on mat internal gas pressure, moisture content and temperature evolution during the hot-pressing process. The objectives of this work were to determine the effect of fiber size and mat density on the intrinsic gas permeability of the mat. For the study of these mat properties, panels with a homogeneous density profile through the thickness were manufactured at five density levels (200, 400, 600, 800 and 1000 kg m−3) for three different fiber sizes. Fiber refining was performed in a disk refiner at three plate spacings. Gas permeability was measured with an in-house built apparatus. The results showed that the fiber sizes studied had no significant effect on the intrinsic permeability. This was likely due to a more significant impact of the internal porous structure of the mat compared to fiber size. Besides, the intrinsic permeability decreased significantly when the panel density increased from 198 to 810 kg m−3. This suggests that the decrease of the intrinsic gas permeability during the last seconds of press closure plays an essential role in the bulk moisture mass transfer through the fiberboard mat.
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".