MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006347008 · doi:10.1179/wsc.2007.17.5.259

Kiln Drying Canadian Softwoods and Hardwoods: Different Species – Different Problems

2007· article· en· W2006347008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pavlos Alexiadis, David H. Cohen, Robert Kozak, Stavros Avramidis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Institute of Wood Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwoodKilnPulp and paper industryWood dryingHardwoodProduct (mathematics)Waste managementQuality (philosophy)Profitability indexEnvironmental scienceEngineeringBusinessMaterials scienceMathematicsComposite materialMoistureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mail survey on kiln drying problems faced by Canadian companies processing softwood and/or hardwood timbers revealed important differences in drying methodologies, and dried product quality. Two significant differences in the drying process were identified related to electrical energy consumption and spraying systems, but none in kiln control. For kiln drying problems, softwood mills preferred the assistance of kiln manufacturers, while operations drying hardwoods or both softwoods and hardwoods more frequently consulted research institutes. Dried product quality problems were more crucial to mills that only dried hardwoods. Results of this research could provide companies with a better understanding of their sector, point out possible opportunities for increasing the profitability and stability of the wood products industry, as well as assist in focusing research efforts.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Institute of Wood ScienceSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207