MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1701629820 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2013-0161

Effect of growth rate on the natural durability of Douglas-fir in western Europe

2013· article· en· W1701629820 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline Pollet, Jean-Marc Henin, Jean‐Louis Hébert, Benoît Jourez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilityDouglas firSilvicultureJuvenileForestryBotanyBiologyHorticultureEcologyGeographyComposite materialMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Douglas-fir is a relatively recent species in the central European forest landscape. It is not clear how its natural durability is influenced by silviculture. We therefore investigated how the natural durability of the Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) varies according to tree growth rate; subsequently, the influence of the nature of the wood (juvenile or mature) and radial position was also analyzed. For this purposes, a total of 60 trees grown in Wallonia (Southern Belgium) was felled: these consisted of 6 trees in each of 10 stands where the average tree girth was approximately 150 cm. Since the age of these plantations ranged from 40 to 69 years, the radial tree growth rate ranged between approximately 3 and 7 mm. In all the trees, standardized heartwood test specimens were taken from different radial positions in the butt log. The mass losses caused by the fungi Poria placenta and Coniophora puteana were assessed according to CEN/TS 15083-1 (2005). Poria placenta exhibited a higher decaying efficiency than C. puteana, leading to classify Douglas-fir wood as slightly durable (class 4). No difference was observed between the durability against P. placenta of juvenile and mature wood. Similarly, growth rate seemed to have no direct impact on durability. Durability was, however, significantly correlated with wood density. The effect of site and tree on the natural durability of the wood was also examined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207