MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971670466 · doi:10.1080/17480272.2010.493222

Lumber Quality Model: The theory

2010· article· en· W1971670466 on OpenAlexafffund
Diego Elustondo

Bibliographic record

VenueWood Material Science and Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
FundersFPInnovations
KeywordsShrinkageKilnDistortion (music)CalibrationMonte Carlo methodExperimental dataComputer scienceWater contentQuality (philosophy)SimulationEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsMachine learningGeotechnical engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new model for predicting moisture content, distortion and shrinkage distribution after lumber drying has been designed, implemented and tested. The model was implemented using Monte Carlo simulation, and it involves three empirical equations that were developed on the basis of experimental data. The model is referred as the Lumber Quality Model, and it is designed to be calibrated by knowing the initial and final moisture content, distortion and shrinkage distribution for a reference drying run. After calibration, the model can be used to predict the same information for other hypothetical drying scenarios. The present study explains the theoretical aspects of the model and the methodology for implementation. The model was validated with experimental data measured in a laboratory kiln. A full-scale industrial validation will be reported in a future paper.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWood Material Science and EngineeringSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207