Hybrid Sandwich Particleboard Made with Sugarcane, Pínus Taeda Thermally Treated and Malva Fibre from Amazon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multilayer particleboard panels, consisted of sugarcane bagasse reinforced composite as core material and hybrid composites made with Pinus taeda particles and Malva fibres as facing materials, were designed and evaluated in this work. Tukey test was used to identify the effect of the facing material, considering different combinations of Pinus taeda particles and Malva fibres, on the bulk density, thickness swelling, flexural strength, flexural stiffness and X-ray densitometry. A spray-up process was used to spread castor oil based polyurethane resin upon the dispersive phases followed by a hot compaction at 100oC. The particleboards were classified as medium density panels in accordance to the Brazilian, American and Canadian Standards. All treatments reached the minimum strength except for elastic modulus. Tukey test demonstrated the flexural strength and modulus responses for all treatments were statistically similar. Hybrid particleboard consisted of 75% of Pinus taeda wood and 25% of Malva fibres revealed a promising sustainable material for furniture industries, combining strength, low-cost and lower thickness swelling values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".