Evaluating the suitability of hybrid poplar clones for the manufacture of oriented strand boards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Clonal trees from five different plantation-grown, industrially relevant hybrid poplar genotypes of the same age, grown on a common site in British Columbia, Canada, were tested for their performance in strand production and properties of oriented strand board (OSB). The results were compared against a benchmark mill-run OSB furnish derived from native aspen (Populus tremuloides). Variation in solid wood density among the hybrid poplar clones was shown to influence the compaction ratio and densification of the OSB, which in turn led to variation in board strength properties. After accounting for specimen density using co-variate statistical models, it was apparent that there were significant effects of genotype on bonding strength and thickness swell. Lower density wood from the fastest growing P. deltoides×P. trichocarpa (DTAC 7) clone resulted in better mat compaction and higher bond strength, whereas higher density wood from a P. trichocarpa×P. deltoides (TD 50-184) clone resulted in lower compaction and bonding strength. Flexural strength (rupture and elastic moduli) and nail pull through were not as significantly affected by either board density or genotype when adjusted for density. The study clearly demonstrates that fast grown, large diameter wood of lower initial wood density from hybrid poplar is highly suited for OSB production.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".