Shelling of Growth Rings at Softwood Surfaces Exposed to Natural Weathering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shelling is the delamination of growth rings and the projection of woody tissue from wood surfaces. Shelling disrupts coatings and makes refinishing difficult, and a better understanding of the phenomenon is needed to help alleviate its unwanted effects. We tested whether confocal profilometry could quantify shelling in flat-faced and profiled-faced western larch deckboards exposed to natural weathering and examined the effects of growth-ring orientation and angle on shelling. Confocal profilometry was able to quantify shelling in both deckboard types. Shelling developed at the surface of flat-faced deckboards oriented pith-side-up, whereas it was absent from boards oriented bark-side-up. We found an inverse correlation between the height of shelled growth rings and the angle of growth rings to the surface of flat-faced boards. Shelling occurred in profiled-faced boards oriented pith-side-up due to the delamination of growth ring tips and projection of latewood from wood surfaces. A superficially similar although less pronounced phenomenon was seen in profiled-faced boards oriented bark-side-up. The shelling of profiled-faced boards oriented pith-side-up created lanceolate-shaped slivers of latewood that projected from the peaks of profiles. Some of these latewood tips were sharp and, for this reason, we suggest that profiled-faced western larch deckboards should always be oriented bark-side-up rather than pith-side-up.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".