TECHNICAL NOTE: POSITIVE EFFECTS OF DOUBLE-SIDED PROFILING ON THE CUPPING AND CHECKING OF ACQ-TREATED DOUGLAS FIR, WESTERN HEMLOCK AND WHITE SPRUCE DECKBOARDS EXPOSED TO NATURAL WEATHERING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machining grooves into the upper surface of wooden deckboards reduces undesirable checking that develops when deckboards are exposed to weather. But profiled boards cup more than unprofiled boards. We sought a solution to this problem and hypothesized that profiling both sides of boards would reduce the cupping of profiled boards. We tested the effects of profile type (Flat, single-, and double-sided profiles) and growth ring orientation (concave vs convex) on the cupping and checking of alkaline copper quaternary-treated deckboards made from Douglas fir, western hemlock, and white spruce. There were significant differences in the cupping of deckboards made from the three different wood species (Douglas fir<white spruce<western hemlock), and boards with concave growth ring orientations cupped significantly less than boards with convex growth ring orientations. Most importantly, our results show that double-sided profiling reduces the cupping of deckboards, irrespective of wood species, and growth ring orientations of deckboards. Double-sided profiling also significantly reduced checking of deckboards exposed to the weather. We conclude that profiling the underside or profiled deckboards to create a “balance” double-sided board is a simple solution to the problem of increased cupping that develops when profiled (single-sided) softwood deckboards are exposed to weather.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".