MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135160024 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2013-0187

Bending properties and strength grading of Norway spruce: variation within and between stands

2013· article· en· W2135160024 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olav Høibø, Geir I. Vestøl, Carolin Fischer, Ludvig Fjeld, Audun Øvrum

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Miljø- og Biovitenskapelige UniversitetNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsPicea abiesGrading (engineering)Young's modulusFlexural strengthStiffnessMathematicsSoftwoodMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineeringBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current strength grading of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) structural timber is only able to describe parts of the great variability in density and bending properties. This study assesses whether information about the origin of the timber can be used to predict its strength and stiffness, alone or in combination with machine strength grading. Three hundred and seventy-three boards from 45 trees sampled from three stands in eastern Norway were studied. Substantial parts of the variability of density, modulus of elasticity (MOE), and bending strength or modulus of rupture (MOR) of the boards studied were explained by origin (differences between sites, relative tree size (diameter at breast height), and longitudinal position in stem). Origin also gave a reduction in residual variance in addition to what was obtained by machine grading based on resonance frequencies. For MOR, the improvement was larger than what was obtained by adding density, whereas for MOE, the density was more important than information about origin.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207