MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046786156 · doi:10.1515/hf.2009.015

Recent progress in research on the cutting processes of wood. A review COST Action E35 2004–2008: Wood machining – micromechanics and fracture

2008· review· en· W2046786156 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMicromechanicsMachiningMaterials scienceFracture mechanicsFracture (geology)Mechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent progress in research on the cutting processes of wood is presented, particularly in regard to new methods of accomplishing an increase in volume recovery by sawmills. The suitability of modern fracture mechanics was demonstrated for the estimation of the cutting power for saws in which kerfs are different from saws used in cutting tests, and whereby the data of sawn material – such as the specific work of surface formation (toughness) and the shear yield stress – were determined. Cutting tests were carried out on the modern frame sawing machine (sash gang saw) for narrow-kerf sawing with the hybrid dynamically balanced driving system and elliptical teeth trajectory movement.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.241 · 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