MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analytical equations for predicting effective thermal conductivity in laminated wood composites

2025· article· en· W4407359922 on OpenAlexaff
Sardar Malek

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite materialMaterials scienceThermal conductivityThermal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an analytical modeling approach to predict the effective in-plane and out-of-plane thermal conductivities of laminated wood composite products such as Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT). Considering wood’s orthotropic nature, having models that could be used to estimate the effective thermal conductivity properties of laminated wood products in various directions becomes essential for understanding the coupling between mechanical and thermal properties, as well as predicting the dimensional stability of large wood composite panels. For this purpose, analytical thermal conductivity equations were derived in three orthogonal directions, considering different properties of wood along its orthotropic directions, following Fourier’s Law. The derived equations were then applied to different CLT panel products and results were compared to assess their accuracy. As CLT panels may be produced without edge gluing, two scenarios were investigated to understand the effect of edge gluing on thermal conductivity of such panels. First, the presence of adhesive between timber layers was ignored (i.e. not edge-glued panels); second, adhesive and its thickness were included. Results demonstrated the reasonable accuracy of the proposed approach in predicting the thermal conductivity of CLT panels made with different gluing methods. The modeling of imperfect bonds and air gaps is also briefly discussed.

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 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207