Shrinkage of Three Tropical Hardwoods Below and Above the Fiber Saturation Point
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experimental techniques were used to perform moisture sorption tests at 25°C on samples of three tropical hardwood species: tornillo (Cedrelinga cateniformis Ducke), pumaquiro (Aspidosperma macrocarpon Mart.), and huayruro (Ormosia coccinea Jackson) woods. The first technique used saturated salt solutions at a relative humidity from 0% to 90%, and the second one used the pressure membrane method at above 96% relative humidity. These sorption tests were combined with shrinkage measurements. The fiber saturation point (FSP), estimated by interpolation to zero volumetric shrinkage, was 28%, 22.5%, and 21.5% for tornillo, pumaquiro, and huayruro, respectively. Results confirmed that at equilibrium moisture content, radial, tangential, and volumetric shrinkage occur above the actual FSP. This behavior can be explained by the effect of hysteresis at saturation on wood properties. This hysteresis indicates that loss of bound water takes place in the presence of liquid or capillary water, which contradicts the traditional concept of FSP. The initial equilibrium moisture content at which bound water starts to leave cell walls varied largely among the species: 52%, 36%, and 77% for tornillo, pumaquiro, and huayruro, respectively. The liquid water remaining in wood could be principally located in the least permeable flow paths of these wood species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".