Effect of growth suppression and release on strength and specific gravity of yellow-poplar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compression tests and specific gravity analyses were conducted to investigate the impacts of growth suppression and growth release on wood quality in yellow-poplar ( Liriodendron tulipifera L.). Growth ring widths in 23 increment cores were determined and the years of minimum suppression and maximum release were identified based on a modified radial growth averaging technique. Three specimens (1 mm × 1 mm × 4 mm) from both minimum suppression and maximum release years were prepared from each increment core. Data analysis using paired-samples t tests revealed that the mean ultimate crushing stress of the maximum release years was significantly higher than that of the minimum suppression years, yet the mean specific gravity was not significantly different. Even though there was no statistical difference in specific gravity for the two growth conditions studied, the ultimate crushing stress was statistically higher for the release growth specimens. This finding provides support for the concept that growth rate can have an added effect on strength properties that is not entirely captured by specific gravity. Thus, to improve wood quality in yellow-poplar stands, forest managers might consider increasing the likelihood of periods of growth release by controlling the competition experienced by the trees.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".