MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038136601 · doi:10.5558/tfc86263-2

Effect of Armillaria root disease on quality and value of green Douglas-fir lumber

2010· article· en· W2038136601 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. G. Cruickshank

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArmillariaDouglas firGrading (engineering)HorticultureMathematicsForestryBotanyBiologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a few tree species, scattered accounts of impact caused by root disease exist in the literature mainly at the tree level. No product quality impacts have ever been measured or properly costed. To provide some information on value impacts, green rough-sawn Douglas-fir lumber was cut from trees with and without Armillaria root disease. This produced 80 boards from six trees in two planted stands. Fewer boards came from living diseased trees compared to healthy trees of similar diameter (1.3 m) at both sites, suggesting that disease may affect stem taper or form. Lumber from diseased trees was affected most often by warp and for healthy trees by knots, but warp affected value the most. Disease appears to have at best no effect, and at worst, a negative effect on lumber value but is not likely to increase value. This is the first report of the impact of a root disease on lumber quality and value, but further work would be required to properly assess this. Key words: disease, Armillaria root disease, conifer, Douglas-fir, wood quality, lumber warping, lumber value, lumber grading

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 score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207