Defining patterns in the fire protection of wood with reactive coating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An issue related to using a weatherproof reactive coating for fire protection of wood is to ensure resistance to high-temperature flame via application technology. Therefore, the object of research was the fire-retardant properties of reactive coating based on mixtures of organic-inorganic substances during interaction with flame. It has been proven that the samples of the reactive coating represent an accumulation of fine-dispersed equally sized substances surrounded by a polymer binder, which begin to decompose under thermal action; in particular, ammonium polyphosphate decomposes and releases phosphoric acid. That leads to the dehydration of pentaerythrite with the formation of soot while the decomposition of melamine is accompanied by the release of non-combustible gases that cause the soot to foam, thereby forming foamcoke. The mechanism of fire protection of wood has been established, which is related to the decomposition of flame retardants under the influence of temperature, the release of non-combustible gases, and the formation of a non-flammable coke residue. Thus, when the content of ammonium polyphosphate and pentaerythrite in the reactive coating was increased by 5 %, the volume of combustible gases decreased by more than 11 %, and the volume of nitrogen increased by more than 10 %. When their content was increased by 14 %, the volume of combustible gases decreased by more than 2 times, and the volume of nitrogen increased by more than 1.45 times. That also affected the formation of a foamcoke layer, which was recorded at the lowest content of ammonium polyphosphate at the level of 12 mm and increased for higher values up to 15.5 mm, and the multiplicity of foam increased by 1.25 times. The practical significance is that the results are taken into account when designing the reactive coating. Thus, there are reasons to assert the possibility of targeted regulation of the wood protection process by applying coatings capable of forming a protective layer on the surfacev
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".