MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108100807 · doi:10.1139/x06-296

Modelling of wood density and fibre dimensions in mature Norway spruce

2007· article· en· W2108100807 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dag Molteberg, Olav Høibø

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism
KeywordsPicea abiesMathematicsResidualTree (set theory)Mixed modelVariance componentsEnvironmental scienceForestryStatisticsSoil scienceBotanyBiologyCombinatoricsGeographyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basic density (BD), fibre length (FL), fibre width (FW), and fibre wall thickness (FWT) were investigated in 46 Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) Karst.) trees from five different stands in eastern Norway. From each tree, wood samples were collected in different radial and longitudinal positions. Random coefficient mixed models were used to investigate variation within as well as among trees, both within and among stands. The R 2 with random effects included, describing the best possible (individual) fit of the observed data to the models, were 0.90 for BD, 0.99 for FL, 0.88 for FW, and 0.91 for FWT. With only fixed effects, the best model explained 56% of the total variation for BD, 94.5% for FL, 61% for FW, and 63% for FWT. A common model for all trees, without tree and site information, predicted FL well but BD, FW, and FWT poorly. Adding site index, breast height diameter, and tree height to the models reduced the residual variance considerably for FW, FWT, and particularly BD, whereas only a minor improvement was gained for FL. The latter type of models might be easier to use for industrial purposes. Although information about ring width gave further improvements, ring width measurements are time consuming and difficult to perform in the forest and in industrial environments.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations35
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207