MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970568889 · doi:10.3390/ma12172766

The Effect of Wood Ash as a Partial Cement Replacement Material for Making Wood-Cement Panels

2019· article· en· W2970568889 on OpenAlex
Viet-Anh Vu, Alain Cloutier, Benoı̂t Bissonnette, Pierre Blanchet, Josée Duchesne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCementMaterials scienceAbsorption of waterComposite materialGypsumFlexural strengthWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to consider the use of biomass wood ash as a partial replacement for cement material in wood-cement particleboards. Wood-cement-ash particleboards (WCAP) were made with 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of wood ash as a partial replacement for cement with wood particles and tested for bending strength, stiffness, water absorption, and thermal properties. Test results indicate that water demand increases as the ash content increases, and the mechanical properties decrease slightly with an increase of the ash content until 30% of replacement. On the other hand, the heat capacity increases with the wood ash content. The WCAP can contribute to reducing the heat loss rate of building walls given their relatively low thermal conductivity compared to gypsum boards. The replacement of cement to the extent of approximately 30% by weight was found to give the optimum results.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · 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