MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058373887 · doi:10.2134/jeq2004.7670

Chemical and Carbon‐13 Cross‐Polarization Magic‐Angle Spinning Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Characterization of Logyard Fines from British Columbia

2004· article· en· W2058373887 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline M. Preston, P. D. Forrester

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagic angle spinningChemistryEucalyptusSolid-state nuclear magnetic resonanceMagic anglePyrolysisMineralogyEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryBotanyNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyNuclear magnetic resonanceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phasing out beehive burners and rising costs for landfilling have increased the need to widen options for utilization of the smaller size fractions of woody wastes generated during log handling and sawmilling in British Columbia. We characterized several size classes of logyard fines up to 16 mm sampled from coastal and interior operations. Total C, total N, ash, and condensed tannin concentrations were consistent with properties derived largely from wood, with varying proportions of bark and mixing with mineral soil. Especially for < 3-mm fractions, the latter resulted in high ash contents that would make them unsuitable for fuel. Solid-state 13C cross-polarization magic-angle spinning (CPMAS) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra were consistent with the chemical data, with high O-alkyl intensity and similarity to naturally occurring woody forest floor; no samples were high in aromatic or phenolic C. Aqueous extracts of two < 16-mm fines, which accounted for only a small proportion of the total C, were enriched in alkyl C and had low or undetectable tannins. Application to forest sites might cause short-term immobilization of N, but also might include possible longer-term benefits from reduction of N loss after harvesting and restoration of soil organic matter in degraded sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207