Visual identification, physical properties, ash composition, and water diffusion of wetwood in<i>Gmelina arborea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wetwood is commonly reported in temperate species but not so in tropical species. In an old Gmelina arborea Roxb. plantation, wetwood was identified by a darker colour compared with the rest of heartwood; by a higher moisture content (average 182%); and a lower specific gravity (0.34, compared with 0.38 for sapwood and heartwood). Tangential shrinkage was 3.7%, which was significantly higher than that of heartwood and sapwood. Radial shrinkage was not significantly different between wetwood and sapwood, but it was significantly greater (2.6%) in wetwood than in heartwood (1.8%). Wetwood had a significantly higher pH than normal wood, but ash composition was similar to that of normal wood, with the exception of the amounts of iron and potassium. Wetwood and sapwood were less decay resistant than heartwood. Wetwood required less time than heartwood to reach equilibrium moisture content, but more time than sapwood. The tangential and longitudinal diffusion coefficients of wetwood were significantly higher than those of heartwood and lower than those of sapwood. In the radial direction sapwood showed a faster drying rate than wetwood but there was no significant difference between wetwood and heartwood.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".