MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7025777223

Wood coloring by reactive stains

2019· article· en· W7025777223 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNucleofectionAcacia mearnsiiFusible alloyGestational periodDiafiltrationArticular cartilage damage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The appearance of interior wood products (e.g.: furniture and floors) is often the first criteria that affects customer’s interests while making a purchase. One way to diversify the colors and appearances of wood products is by using reactive stains. These coloring systems, consisting of aqueous solutions of metal salts, can penetrate wood and react with its phenolic compounds by forming metal complexes. The color of wood obtained depends on the type of phenolic compounds, type of metal salt, wood surface preparation, temperature, wood humidity, and others. In order to determine the relationship between the structural characteristics of the phenolic compounds and the color developed on wood surface, the polyphenols of two North American hardwood species were extracted and analyzed by different spectrophotometric methods and by liquid state phosphorus-31 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The chromatic coordinates (CIELAB system) of wood colors obtained after application of reactive stains were compared for these hardwood species. A better knowledge of the reaction mechanisms and the factors influencing them, will allow the optimal use of these systems in wood finishing industries. Since the colored products are present in the wood structure, the wood grain appearance will be preserved or even be accentuated. Enhancing the natural and warm aspect of wood used in buildings interiors can contribute to the well-being of the consumers and promote furthermore the use of this biosourced material.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology)Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207