MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983492289 · doi:10.1139/x07-244

Natural durability of black locust (<i>Robinia pseudoacacia</i>L.) wood grown in Wallonia, Belgium

2008· article· en· W1983492289 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline Pollet, Benoît Jourez, Jacques Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobiniaLocustPithHorticultureBotanyDurabilityForestryBiologyGeographyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decay resistance of black locust ( Robinia pseudoacacia L.) heartwood was evaluated on standardized test specimens taken from mature and juvenile wood in 25 trees distributed over five sites in Wallonia, Belgium. The percentage mass losses caused by the wood-destroying fungi Coriolus versicolor CTB 863 A and Coniophora puteana BAM Ebw.15 were evaluated according to Cen/ts 15083-1 (Cen/ts 15083-1. 2005. Durability of wood and wood-based products — determination of the natural durability of solid wood against wood-destroying fungi, test methods — Part 1: Basidiomycetes. European Comm. for Standardization, Brussels). Black locust is classified as a “very durable” wood (class 1), while the juvenile heartwood (located near the pith) is classified in classes 1 to 2. The statistical analysis does not reveal any significant differences among the sites, suggesting that the growth environment of the trees has no effect on their natural durability. However, statistical analysis shows very highly significant differences among trees and between the two radial positions in the tree, with mature wood being more resistant than juvenile wood. Using such a naturally very durable species could reduce reliance on preservative treatment and the use of tropical species generally recommended for outdoor woodwork.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207