MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113227050 · doi:10.3390/coatings10121213

Peroxide Post-Treatment of Wood Impregnated with Micronized Basic Copper Carbonate

2020· article· en· W3113227050 on OpenAlexafffund
Rod Stirling, Gabrielle Boivin, Adnan Uzunovic, Stacey Kus, J. N. R. Ruddick

Bibliographic record

VenueCoatings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsCopperPeroxideChemistryLeaching (pedology)Nuclear chemistryPreservativeMaterials scienceOrganic chemistrySoil waterEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wood is vulnerable to significant color changes when used in exterior applications. Some copper-based wood preservatives use colorants to minimize this color change. This paper examines the ability of a peroxide post-treatment to turn wood impregnated with micronized basic copper carbonate (CuCO3·Cu(OH)2) (MBCC) a stable brown color. MBCC-treated wood, with and without peroxide post-treatment, along with associated controls were evaluated for color change, erosion and black-stain fungal resistance after exposure to artificial photo-degradation. The impact of the peroxide treatment on copper leaching was assessed in a laboratory experiment, and the impact on copper reactivity was assessed by electron parametric resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. Peroxide post-treatment of wood pressure impregnated with MBCC was shown to reduce color change by more than 50% compared to controls. Erosion due to photo-degradation and colonization by black-stain fungi were lower in samples treated with MBCC than in untreated controls and were relatively unaffected by peroxide post-treatment. The peroxide post-treatment was associated with increased amounts of mobile copper. This led to increased susceptibility to leaching and to a more than 60% increase in the amount of copper than had reacted with the wood.

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 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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoatingsSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207