MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010570720 · doi:10.1139/x09-191

Wood stiffness and strength as selection traits for sawn timber in Acacia auriculiformis

2010· article· en· W2010570720 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phi Hong Hai, B. Hannrup, Chris Harwood, Gunnar Jansson, Do Van Ban

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcacia auriculiformisStiffnessShrinkageBotanyTree breedingFlexural strengthHorticultureBiologyComposite materialWoody plantMaterials scienceAcacia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth. is an important planting tree species, but little attention has been paid to its wood properties, such as shrinkage, stiffness, strength, and basic density, which are important for use in structural and appearance-grade timber applications. Here we report the genetic variation in static bending stiffness and strength of wood in a 5½-year-old clone trial in southern Vietnam and the genotypic correlations among these traits and tree diameter, wood shrinkage, and basic density. There was significant variation in stiffness and strength among 40 randomly selected clones. Clonal repeatability (H 2 ) was high for stiffness and moderate for strength. There was no consistent pattern of difference between heartwood and sapwood for the estimates of H 2 for stiffness and strength, whereas the estimates of H 2 were lower for heartwood density than for sapwood density. Diameter showed a significant negative genotypic correlation with stiffness but a nonsignificant correlation with strength. Genotypic correlations between density and stiffness, and density and strength, were positive, but only the latter was significant. Stiffness and strength were not significantly correlated with wood shrinkage. There is potential to simultaneously improve tree growth, wood basic density, and the mechanical properties of juvenile wood of this species.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207