Mechanical properties of lodgepole pine containing beetle-transmitted blue stain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to compare the toughness, bending modulus of rupture (MOR), bending modulus of elasticity (MOE), and truss plate connector grip capacity in tension, between wood infected with blue stain transmitted by the mountain pine beetle and non-stained wood. The blue-stained and non-stained lumber samples used in the study were nominal 2- by 4-inch kiln-dried lodgepole pine obtained from 14 sawmills in British Columbia, Canada. Small, clear specimens were prepared from the lumber samples for testing. The data obtained were analyzed by the Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test to assess whether any significant differences in the above properties exist between the blue-stained and non-stained wood. Blue-stained and non-stained wood had comparable bending MOR, but the former had marginally greater mean bending MOE than the latter. Similarly, the blue-stained wood showed greater mean connector grip capacity compared to non-stained wood. Blue-stained wood showed marginally lower mean toughness compared to non-stained wood, but both had comparable toughness below the lowest quartile of the toughness distribution. The small differences observed associated with blue stain, i.e., 5 percent decrease in mean toughness, 1 percent increase in mean MOE, and 6 percent increase in mean connector grip capacity, are likely to be masked by differences in mechanical properties of the heartwood and sapwood, and by the presence of strength-reducing characteristics, such as knots and slope of grain, in full-size lumber. The MOR and MOE obtained in this study were greater than the published values. Overall, the blue stain did not have a negative effect on the mechanical properties of the wood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".