MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W791346818

The optimum level of nano-wollastonite consumption in particleboard

2015· article· en· W791346818 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H. R. Poshtiril

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWollastoniteMaterials scienceCarbonizationComposite materialSwellingAbsorption of waterRaw materialChemistryScanning electron microscope
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire-retarding properties of wollastonite nanofibers in poplar wood (Populus nigra) were studied here. Some physical properties such as water absorption, volumetric swelling and anti-swelling efficiency (ASE) were also measured. Specimens were prepared according to the ISO 11925 specifications for the fire-retarding properties and according to the ASTM D4446-2002 specifications for the physical properties. Impregnation of wood specimens with nanowollastonite was carried out at consumption levels of 4, 6.3, 10 and 12%, using Rueping Method (empty-cell process) and compared with the control specimens. Five fire-retarding properties were measured, including weight loss (%), ignition point (s), fire endurance (s), glow endurance (s) and carbonization area (%). The obtained results indicated that fire-retarding properties were significantly improved in the NW-treated specimens. Furthermore, the NW-impregnated specimens gained higher dimensional stability. However, water absorption increased. Heat-conductivity of wollastonite limited accumulation of heat at one spot, furthermore, it acted as a physical barrier to deter heat and mass transfer between the gas and the condensed phase, consequently, fire-retarding properties were improved.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical Engineering ResearchSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207