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

Lumber Quality Model: The theory

2010· article· en· W1971670466 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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

Abstract 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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