MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076346595 · doi:10.1515/hf.2006.032

Temperature-drop sensor for determination of drying curves in conventional lumber drying

2006· article· en· W2076346595 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Diego Elustondo, Luiz C. Oliveira, Peter Lister

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Arizona
KeywordsAirflowKilnWood dryingDrop (telecommunication)Water contentMaterials scienceMoistureEvaporationCalibrationSoftwoodComposite materialEnvironmental scienceTemperature measurementPulp and paper industryMeteorologyMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringMechanical engineeringThermodynamicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Conventional lumber drying is carried out by forcing hot air to flow across a pile of lumber layers separated by wood strips. The airflow provides the heat required to warm up the lumber and produce the moisture evaporation and, in theory, the difference in temperature at each side of the load can be used to estimate the evaporation rate. The main problem with this approach is that typical temperature sensors that are installed in conventional kilns are not accurate enough to measure the temperature drop across the load during periods of low evaporation. In this paper, a new sensor to measure the temperature drop across the load is proposed and tested in three experimental drying runs of 2″×6″ spruce-pine lumber. The results demonstrate that after calibration, the temperature drop across the load can be used to determine drying curves in conventional lumber drying. In the particular case of this study, calibration was performed by multiplying the experimental temperature drop across the load by a constant factor, which was adjusted by identifying the correction factor that best simulated the experimental green moisture content of the three lumber charges.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207