Characterization of pacific silver fir impregnated with extractives from western redcedar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative and higher value uses are needed for residual materials generated from wood products processing.Western redcedar sawdust contains an array of unique chemicals and has the potential to be used to alter the appearance, stability and durability of non-durable timbers.Here it was hypothesized that impregnation of Western redcedar heartwood extractives into Pacific silver fir would decrease shrinkage, hygroscopicity, and susceptibility to decay.Western redcedar hot water extracts were obtained from sawdust and used to pressure-treat Pacific silver fir blocks.Extractive impregnation enhanced the wood's appearance and gave it a more cedar-like brown colour.Impregnated samples had reduced shrinkage, but were not as dimensionally stable as Western redcedar heartwood.Pacific silver fir blocks impregnated with water-soluble extractives were also highly susceptible to leaching, and leached samples had similar shrinkage values to untreated controls.In contrast, leaching had little effect on the hygroscopicity of the Western redcedar heartwood.Extractive-impregnated Pacific silver fir blocks had increased resistance to decay by two brown-rot fungi, and showed resistance similar to that of Western redcedar heartwood.However, leached blocks did not have the same decay resistance.
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) | 0.000 | 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".