Treatments of residual pine strands: characterization and wood-cement-compatibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to evaluate treatments on pine strands as well as wood-cement compatibility. The strands were prepared and then were submitted to four treatments (untreated; cold water, hot water and NaOH). Physical, chemical, thermal and mechanical properties of the strands were measured. Wood-cement composites were produced with all strand treatments. To evaluate the strand effects on the cement hydration, axial compression tests were conducted at 28-day. The phases of the matrix of the composites at 24 h 7- and 28-day were also determinate. Fourier transform infrared spectra shows that, although the treatments partially removed the hemicellulose and extractives, they also reduced the cellulose and lignin bands. Axial compression results indicated that there were no differences between values for the composites with untreated and treated strands. For the phase analyses, in the initial ages (24 h and 7-day), it was identified that portlandite for cement sample (control) is higher than those containing the strands. At 28-day, it was found that among the strands, the untreated have the lower portlandite content and the higher calcium carbonate content. Indicating the cement carbonation over time as presented in the cement sample (control). Therefore, the untreated pine residual strand showed good compatibility with cement and for this study there were no benefits on treating the strands.
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".