MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029651157 · doi:10.13073/fpj-d-14-00045

Application of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy to Determine the Juvenile–Mature Wood Transition in Black Spruce

2014· article· en· W2029651157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guillaume Giroud, Maurice Defo, Jean Bégin, Chhun-Huor Ung

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Products Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileInfrared spectroscopyBlack spruceInfraredSoftwoodSpectroscopyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistryComposite materialForestryEcologyBiologyPhysicsGeographyOpticsTaigaOrganic chemistryAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The potential of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to determine the transition from juvenile to mature wood in black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.) was assessed. In total, 127 wood samples were harvested from 50 sites located across the black spruce–moss domain in the province of Québec, Canada. Mechanical wood properties were determined by SilviScan. NIR spectra were collected on the transverse face of the samples. Good to excellent calibration statistics (R2, ratio of performance to deviation) were obtained for basic density (0.85, 1.8), microfibril angle (0.79, 2.2), and modulus of elasticity (0.88, 2.9). Two-segment linear regressions were applied to microfibril angle profiles to determine the transition age and then calculate the juvenile and mature wood properties. The values obtained using SilviScan data were compared with those obtained using NIRS predicted data. Using SilviScan data, the average transition age was 23 years, with a standard deviation of 7 years. The correlation was moderate for the transition age (r = 0.592, P < 0.0001), which was slightly underestimated by NIRS with a mean prediction error (and 95% limits of agreement) of −2.2 ± 6.3 years (−14.6/10.1). These results suggest that the transition age from juvenile to mature wood could be predicted by NIRS. This article makes some recommendations to improve method accuracy for operational use.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Products JournalSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207