Relationships of density, microfibril angle, and sound velocity with stiffness and strength in mature wood of Douglas-fir
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative importance of density, acoustic velocity, and microfibril angle (MFA) for the prediction of stiffness (MOE) and strength (MOR) has not been well established for Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco). MOE and MOR of small clear specimens of mature wood were better predicted by density and velocity than by either variable alone (183 trees >20 years old, six specimens per tree, 1087 specimens total). Specimens sampled around the stem circumference had similar density (intraclass correlation coefficient t = 0.74) but not MOE (t = 0.40) or acoustic velocity (t = 0.32), indicating benefits from sampling several circumferential positions. For MOE, the path coefficients (β) were moderate for density and velocity. For MOR, β was only high for density. End-matched samples of one specimen per tree were analyzed with SilviScan. Simple correlations with MOE were highest for density (r = 0.67) and then acoustic velocity 2 (0.53), MFA (–0.50), earlywood MFA (–0.45), and latewood proportion (0.40). Most correlations were weaker for MOR. Density had a higher β than did MFA for either MOE or MOR. In more complex path models, latewood proportion and latewood density were the most important contributors to MOE and MOR, and MFA was relatively unimportant. The path analyses showed what simple correlation did not: that latewood proportion has strong predictive value for Douglas-fir mature wood quality.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it