Characterizing microscopic behavior of wood under transverse compression. Part II. Effect of species and loading direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specimens of four species with different cellular structures (white spruce, jack pine, white ash, and aspen) were tested in radial compression. Deformation characteristics were observed and measured using a microscope at different magnifications. The magnified images were recorded with a video recorder, which were then played back for deformation measurements. Stress-strain responses of these specimens were determined from the measured load and deformation. As expected, the softwood and hardwood responses to radial compression were influenced by the anatomical features. Tangential compression tests were also conducted on white spruce and jack pine specimens. It was found that the mechanisms of deformation in radial and in tangential compression were distinctly different for these softwood species. In radial compression, cell-wall deformation dominated elastic behavior, and collapse of the weakest cells in earlywood coincided with the onset of yielding observed in the stress-strain curve. Cell collapse developed only in earlywood, while latewood cells mainly underwent elastic deformation. In tangential compression, elastic deformation was dominated by the bending of the latewood layers. For the two hardwood species, the measured elastic strain under radial compression was dominated by deformations in the vessels. Yield point on stress-strain curves was related to the collapse of these vessels.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".