MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097626373 · doi:10.5558/tfc85870-6

Model development for lumber volume recovery of natural balsam fir trees in Quebec, Canada

2009· article· en· W2097626373 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Chuangmin Liu, Jean‐Claude Ruel, Art Groot, S Y Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité LavalFPInnovations
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceUniversity of British ColumbiaFPInnovationsFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesUniversité LavalU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBalsamVolume (thermodynamics)Abies balsameaDouglas firTree (set theory)Regression analysisForestryEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsGeographyBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve the precision of sawing simulations, 4 regression models were developed to predict simulated lumber volume recovery using tree size variables. Simulated lumber volume recoveries from natural balsam fir trees based on the sawing simulator Optitek were different from real lumber volume recoveries from a stud sawmill because the simulation method only takes wane into consideration. Therefore, 2 methods were developed to correct estimated lumber volume recoveries. The results indicate that the lumber volume correction models for stem deformations could adjust the predictions of lumber volume recovery from the simulation and directly from the sawing simulator to obtain more accurate estimates. With the correction models, the lumber volume recovery from natural balsam fir trees could be estimated directly using easily measured tree DBH and height from the forest resource inventory. Key words: balsam fir, stem deformation, product recovery, sawing simulation, correction models, regression model

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207