Measuring the decay resistance of Scots pine heartwood indirectly by the Folin-Ciocalteu assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To exploit the variation in the natural durability of heartwood timber, screening of a large number of trees or timber is necessary. We suggest that the concentration of total phenolics, measured by the Folin–Ciocalteu (FC) assay, can be used to supplement or even replace in vitro decay tests for screening the variation in the resistance of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) heartwood timber against the brown-rot fungus Coniophora puteana (Schum. ex Fr.). We screened the juvenile heartwood of 520 Scots pine trees with the FC assay. Samples from 40 trees, with total phenolics concentrations ranging from 1.9 to 21.7 mg tannic acid equivalents (TAE)/g of heartwood, were subjected to an in vitro decay test. The correlation (r) between the total phenolics concentration and mass loss was –0.82 (p < 0.001) in the 7 week long decay test. The relationship was expressed with a linear regression equation: mass loss (mg/g) = 487 – 25 × concentration of total phenolics (mg TAE/g). This strong relationship could be exploited by replacing the decay test with the FC assay to more rapidly assess the durability of wood products.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".