Impact of thermal modification on bioresistance of North American wood species, <i>Pinus banksiana</i> , <i>Populus tremuloides</i> , and <i>Betula papyrifera</i> , against wood-rotting basidiomycete fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the decay resistance of untreated and thermally modified jack pine (Pinus Banksiana), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and white birch (Betula Papyrifera) was evaluated. Wood specimens were exposed to laboratory decay resistance tests using the wood-rot fungi, Trametes. versicolor, Poria placenta, and Gloephyllum trabeum for 2–12 weeks of incubation.The results indicated that, T. versicolor fungus was virulent against all the three untreated woods, B. papyrifera (73.9% weight loss), P. tremuloides (57.1% weight loss), and P. banksiana (43.5% weight loss). P. placenta fungus affected B. papyrifera (52.4% weight loss), P. banksiana (52.3% weight loss), and P. tremuloides (36.7% weight loss). G. trabeum fungus was virulent against P. banksiana (41.53% weight loss), but less active against B. papyrifera (11.6% weight loss) and P. tremuloides (21.9% weight loss).It was found that the weight losses due to T. versicolor fungus activity were reduced for P. banksiana (1.5% weight loss) thermally modified at 210 °C, B. papyrifera (27.9% weight loss) at 215 °C, and P. tremuloides (9% weight loss) at 220 °C compared to the weight losses of their untreated counterparts. These correspond to 96.5%, 62.2% and 84.2% of decrease in weight loss, respectively. Similar results were obtained with G. trabeum fungus. On the contrary, thermal modification on the deterioration of P. banksiana (39.1% weight loss) by P. Placenta was affected less resulting in only 25.2% weight loss relative to untreated 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".