MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484804741 · doi:10.15376/biores.7.3.2809-2819

Color change of Chinese fir through steam-heat treatment

2012· article· en· W1484804741 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDyeing and Modifying Textile Fibers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersChinese Academy of ForestryNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMaterials scienceColor differenceComposite materialCunninghamiaPulp and paper industrySignificant differenceWaste managementHorticultureBotanyMathematicsEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dark brown wood color is a current trend and widely appreciated by consumers in the furniture and decoration markets. Heat treatment is one of the most effective methods to darken wood’s appearance. The influence of steam-heat treatment on color change of Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook.) was investigated within the temperature range from 170 to 230 °C and time from 1 to 5 hours in an air-tight chamber within an atmosphere comprising less than 2 percent oxygen. Saturated steam was used as a heating medium and a shielding gas. The results showed that the chroma difference (△C*) decreased gradually, while the color difference (△E*) and hue difference (△H*) increased with an increase in temperature and length of time. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a multi-comparison analysis revealed that the treatment temperature plays a more important role in darkening wood color during the process of steam-heat treatment in comparison with the treatment time. The results suggest that a more desirable wood color can be achieved with the technology of steam-heat treatment.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.216 · 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