Wood Fiber Quality and Kraft Pulping Efficiencies of Trembling Aspen (<i>Populus tremuloides</i> Michx) Clones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The natural variation in wood and pulp fiber quality of 15 aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx) clones, represented by 47 trees, was assessed from 4 different sites in British Columbia, Canada. Kraft pulping trials revealed substantial variation in the pulping efficiencies, illustrated by differences of 6% in total pulp yield, ∼30% differences in H‐factor required to attain a target kappa of 21, and differences of up to 2 ISO brightness units in bleachability of kappa 21 pulp. Clearly, enormous variation exists in the natural stands of aspen, and presents some exciting opportunities for selecting clonal aspen for targeted end‐product applications. A comprehensive characterization of wood chemical composition, wood density, and fiber properties indicated that pulp yield is directly related to syringyl lignin monomer composition, and not inherent wood density, regardless of geographic locations, whereas pulp bleachability and viscosity appear to be associated with the inherent cell wall thickness of the starting wood resources (fiber coarseness). These findings suggest that geographic location imparts influences on wood fiber coarseness traits, while substantial genetic variability exists on all sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".