MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134608494 · doi:10.1139/x04-160

Nondestructive estimation of <i>Pinus taeda</i> L. wood properties for samples from a wide range of sites in Georgia

2005· article· en· W2134608494 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul D. Jones, Laurence R. Schimleck, G. F. Peter, Richard F. Daniels, Alexander Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Georgia
KeywordsLoblolly pinePinus <genus>CalibrationRange (aeronautics)MathematicsSpectral lineStiffnessEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMaterials sciencePhysicsBotanyBiologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary studies based on small sample sets show that near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy has the potential for rapidly estimating many important wood properties. However, if NIR is to be used operationally, then calibrations using several hundred samples from a wide variety of growing conditions need to be developed and their performance tested on samples from new populations. In this study, 120 Pinus taeda L. (loblolly pine) radial strips (cut from increment cores) representing 15 different sites from three physiographic regions in Georgia (USA) were characterized in terms of air-dry density, microfibril angle (MFA), and stiffness. NIR spectra were collected in 10-mm increments from the radial longitudinal surface of each strip and split into calibration (nine sites, 729 spectra) and prediction sets (six sites, 225 spectra). Calibrations were developed using untreated and mathematically treated (first and second derivative and multiplicative scatter correction) spectra. Strong correlations were obtained for all properties, the strongest R 2 values being 0.83 (density), 0.90 (MFA), and 0.93 (stiffness). When applied to the test set, good relationships were obtained (R p 2 ranged from 0.80 to 0.90), but the accuracy of predictions varied depending on math treatment. The addition of a small number of cores from the prediction set (one core per new site) to the calibration set improved the accuracy of predictions and importantly minimized the differences obtained with the various math treatments. These results suggest that density, MFA, and stiffness can be estimated by NIR with sufficient accuracy to be used in operational settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations108
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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