MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022325202 · doi:10.5658/wood.2018.46.5.425

Planar (Rolling) Shear Strength of Structural Panels Using 5-point Bending Test

2018· article· en· W3022325202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sei Chang Oh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaegu University
KeywordsPerpendicularMaterials scienceComposite materialShear (geology)Direct shear testOriented strand boardStructural engineeringBendingShear strength (soil)Three point flexural testDelamination (geology)PlanarGeometryEngineeringGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to evaluate the planar (rolling) shear strength of OSB (oriented strand board) panels and domestic plywood through 5 point bending test method in ASTM D2718 standard. The test specimens were prepared in parallel and perpendicular direction to major axis (along the length of panels) and tested up to failure, and failure modes were also examined. From the test results, rolling shear strength were found to be 1.32 ~ 1.94N/mm2 in parallel to major axis, and 1.46 ~ 1.99N/mm2 in perpendicular to major axis respectively. Little difference was found between parallel and perpendicular direction of rolling shear strength. There were no statistically significant differences in rolling shear strength between Canadian OSB and domestic plywood in the parallel direction, and between Chilean OSB and domestic plywood in the perpendicular direction. The shear failure was observed in all tested OSB panels, whereas shear failure, glue line delamination, and bending combined with shear failure were observed in the domestic plywood.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Wood Science and TechnologySame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207