DURALARCH - suitability of selected coloured coniferous heartwoods of different origin for their use in outdoor applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For outdoor above-ground applications with high demands on biological durability, there are only a few softwoods available that also have high density and strength characteristics. One of the most important timbers with these material properties is Siberian larch (Larix sibirica, Larix gmelinii), which is available in sufficient quantities due to its large distribution area. Imports of Siberian larch from Russia to numerous countries have therefore been established over decades exclusively for many areas of use, e.g. in structural frame construction as well as for terrace decks, windows and external cladding. As a result of the war in Ukraine that Russia started in 2022 and the resulting sanctions, the trade with Siberian larch came to an almost sudden standstill and the remaining stocks were used up within a few months. The German wood trade is currently trying to close the bottlenecks that have arisen while demand is high with different alternative woods. While the wood of the European larch (Larix decidua) or Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) grown in Germany can be used for applications in which the biological durability of the wood is not crucial, other areas require wood with higher durability and sometimes also higher density and slow-grown wood, as is characteristic of Siberian larch. Among others, Canadian larch (Western larch, Larix occidentalis), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and Oregon pine (Douglas fir) from western North America and Dahurian larch (Larix gmelinii) from northern China are imported. Individual woods from the group of softwoods with coloured heartwood described here have already been examined in the past with regard to their biological durability. However, a comprehensive comparative study that also includes Siberian larch is still missing. Therefore, DURALARCH project aims at investigating different species of larch as well as Douglas fir and western red cedar of different origins. In addition to laboratory and field studies on biological durability, density and extractive content are determined and the sorption and moisture behaviour of the wood is characterized. In this paper, we provide an overview about the project and first results related to the moisture dynamics of the different conifers.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".