MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317860592 · doi:10.1051/forest:2008053/pdf

Properties of white birch (Betula papyrifera) outer bark particleboards with reinforcement of coarse wood particles in the core layer

2008· article· en· W4317860592 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roger Pedieu, Bernard Riedl, André Pichette

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesUniversité Laval
KeywordsBark (sound)ReinforcementBetula platyphyllaLayer (electronics)Composite materialCore (optical fiber)Materials scienceBotanyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

$\bullet$ This study proposes substituting traditional raw materials in the surface layers of wood particleboards with the water resistant white birch (Betula papyrifera) outer bark particles, which can help improve the dimensional stability of manufactured mixed particleboards, thereby alleviating shortages of raw material in a cost-efficient manner. $\bullet$ Mixed particleboards were fabricated in the laboratory using untreated or alkali treated white birch outer bark particles as substitute material. These particles were resinated successively with three percentages of phenol-formaldehyde resin. Overall, the results of this study clearly demonstrate that the panels could be manufactured using up to 45% of the proposed substitute material and still maintain the required mechanical and physical properties. $\bullet$ Alkali treatment was used to remove natural wax from bark particles surface which hinders resin adhesion. This treatment negatively affected mechanical and physical properties of finished panels and the variation of phenol-formaldehyde resin percentage in the bark particles significantly affected only their hardness. $\bullet$ Panel with untreated bark particles in the surface layers, resinated with 5% phenol-formaldehyde resin was selected as the best with the help of a statistical analysis carried out in a factorial complete block design, especially from the dimensional stability criterion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207