MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029666139 · doi:10.1139/x05-122

Using <sup>13</sup>C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy for the study of northern hardwood tissues

2005· article· en· W2029666139 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris E. Johnson, Ronald J. Smernik, Thomas G. Siccama, David K Kiemle, Zhihong Xu, Daniel J. Vogt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHardwoodYellow birchLigninChemistrySuberinBark (sound)SoftwoodAceraceaeMapleNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyMagic angle spinningNMR spectra databaseBotanyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental chemistryOrganic chemistrySpectral lineEcologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a useful tool for examining the structural chemistry of natural organic matter. The use of cross-polarization and magic-angle spinning to study 13 C functionality (CPMAS 13 C NMR) is convenient, but not always quantitative. We used various 13 C NMR techniques to examine the structural chemistry of bark and wood of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.). Spin counting experiments showed that 87%–97% of the 13 C in the samples was observable by CPMAS 13 C NMR. A comparison of CPMAS and Bloch decay experiments revealed few differences in spectral properties. Together, these results suggest that CPMAS 13 C NMR is quantitative for these tissues. We observed little variation in the structural chemistry of wood, either among samples of the same species or among species. Within-species variations in bark chemistry were greater than in wood, probably because of variations in environmental conditions. However, we observed no significant differences in bark chemistry among the species. Bark and wood chemistry differed significantly, with the bark spectra displaying greater contributions from lignin, suberin, waxes, and resins. Hardwood spectra differ from softwood spectra in the aromatic C regions because of the contribution of syringyl units to hardwood lignin. Hardwood bark appears to contain less tannins than softwood bark. Together, the quantitative and qualitative features of CPMAS 13 C NMR spectra are useful for studying the ecology of living and detrital wood and bark.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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