MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388035934 · doi:10.1016/j.jobab.2023.10.004

Recent development and challenges in enhancing fire performance on wood and wood-based composites: A 10-year review from 2012 to 2021

2023· review· en· W4388035934 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Michael Albert, Kang Chiang Liew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioresources and Bioproducts · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFlame retardant materials and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Malaysia SabahMinistry of Higher Education, MalaysiaInternational Tropical Timber Organization
KeywordsFire retardantFlammable liquidFire performanceFlammabilityDurabilityFire resistanceMaterials scienceFire protectionFire safetyEnvironmental scienceComposite materialForensic engineeringWaste managementEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to their durability, versatility, and aesthetic value, wood and wood-based composites are widely used as building materials. The fact that these materials are flammable, however, raises a major worry since they might cause fire hazards and significant loss of life and property. The article investigates the variables that affect fire performance as well as the various fire-retardant treatments and their mechanisms. The current developments and challenges in improving the fire performance of wood and wood-based composites treated with fire-retardant materials are summarized in this paper. Nanoparticles, organic chemicals, and densification are some recent developments in fire-retardant treatments that are also emphasized. Key points from the review are summarized, along with potential areas for further research and development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.279
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioresources and BioproductsSame topicFlame retardant materials and propertiesFrench-language works237,207