Performance of Oriented Strand Boards Made with Jack Pine Strands Produced by an Innovative Strander-Canter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian sawmills commonly use chipper-canters to process softwood logs into squared lumber and wood chips for pulp mills. However, the declining demand for newsprint and print paper has led to an oversupply of wood chips, resulting in economic losses and environmental concerns. To address this issue, a strander-canter capable of producing both softwood cants and strands for oriented strand board (OSB) presents a promising alternative. This study evaluates the feasibility of using jack pine strands generated by a novel strander-canter equipped with a cutterhead for OSB strand production. Strands were generated from frozen and unfrozen logs under varying cutting parameters and incorporated in the core layer of the panels. Industrial aspen strands were used for the surface layers. OSB panels were assessed for mechanical and physical properties following the CSA O325:21 standard. Strand size distribution and vertical density profiles were also analyzed. The results indicated that panels made from jack pine strands demonstrated bending and internal bond properties that were either comparable to or superior to those of the control panels. However, including jack pine strands in the core layer increased the thickness swelling of the panels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".