Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) at room temperature of archaeological wood treated with various consolidants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The viscoelastic properties of wood samples treated with various consolidants [polyethylene glycols (PEGs), lactitol and trehalose, Kauramin, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and trimethoxymethylsilane (MTMS), rosin and polyethylene-L-tartaramide] were evaluated by means of dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) in order to clarify their effects with regard to the conservation of wood objects. Two softwoods, medium-decayed silver fir ( Abies alba ) and highly decayed maritime pine ( Pinus pinaster ), and two differently decayed oak hardwoods ( Quercus spp.) were used. In addition, the selected parameters [retention, volume variations and equilibrium moisture content (EMC)] were evaluated to assess the consolidation efficacy. The results showed that in treated wood, both the storage modulus and tanδ depend upon the level of degradation. The impact of the consolidating product was greater in more degraded wood (a higher product amount inside the artefact) compared to well-preserved material, where also wood played a role (also when the products were applied at high concentrations). The values of the different viscoelastic parameters also depend upon the ability of the products to interact with the wood matrix; this characteristic is fundamental to the nature of each consolidant. Lactitol-treated samples showed the highest stiffness increases, whereas those treated with selected PEG combinations and rosin displayed noticeable tanδ increases (high dissipative behaviour).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".