Comparative analysis of balsam fir wetwood, heartwood, and sapwood properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical, anatomical, chemical, and microbiological properties of wetwood in heartwood were compared with those of sapwood and normal heartwood in balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.). Wetwood found only in heartwood of balsam fir had significantly higher moisture content (MC) than normal heartwood but not significantly higher MC than sapwood. No differences in relative density or shrinkage properties were found among tissue types. Wetwood tissue needed longer times to dry to an equilibrium MC of 15%, not only because of its high initial MC, but also because of its lower moisture permeability (diffusion coefficient) in this particular MC range (from initial MC to 15% equilibrium MC). However, there were no significant differences in drying rates for the different tissues when drying from 15% MC to 8% MC. Anatomically, wetwood is similar to normal heartwood, and it has no distinctive characteristics except a greater frequency of bacteria. Energy dispersive X-ray analysis showed that all of the tissues contained the same inorganic elements. Both high-performance liquid chromatography and ash analysis showed that wetwood is chemically closer to normal heartwood than to sapwood. Wetwood was significantly more acidic than either normal heartwood or sapwood. A large number of bacterial genera were found in all three tissues, but there were no consistent or significant differences in bacterial presence or activity among tissue types.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".