MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068531503 · doi:10.1080/07373930601047584

Prediction of Timber Kiln Drying Rates by Neural Networks

2006· article· en· W2068531503 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrying Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKilnArtificial neural networkEnvironmental scienceWood dryingPulp and paper industryProcess engineeringWaste managementEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWater contentGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this exploratory work was to apply artificial neural network (ANN) modeling to the prediction of timber kiln drying rates based on species and basic density information for the hem-fir mix that grows along the local coastal areas. The ANN models with three inputs (initial moisture content, basic density, and drying time) were developed to predict one output, namely, average final moisture content. The back-propagation algorithm, the most common neural network learning method, was implemented for testing, training, and validation. Optimal configuration of the network model was obtained by varying its main parameters, such as transfer function, learning rule, number of neurons and layers, and learning runs. Accurate prediction of the experimental drying rate data by the ANN model was achieved with a mean absolute relative error less than 2%, thus supporting the powerful predictive capacity of this modeling method.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.168 · 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