MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of kiln-drying schedules for wild cherry wood (Cerasus avium)

2013· article· es· W2159399842 on OpenAlexaff
Süleyman Korkut, Öner Ünsal, Duygu Kocaefe, Ayhan Aytin, Asli Gökyar

Bibliographic record

VenueMaderas Ciencia y tecnología · 2013
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersDüzce Üniversitesi
KeywordsKilnWood dryingImage warpingHomogeneousPulp and paper industryMoistureHorticultureEnvironmental scienceWater contentMathematicsComposite materialMaterials scienceWaste managementBiologyEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wild cherry wood (Cerasus avium) lumber with a nominal thickness of 5 cm from Duzce region in Turkey was dried through conventional kiln drying using two different programs which are unprotective drying schedules, and protective drying schedules. The aim was to obtain the most desirable kiln schedule for keeping the wood quality at an appropriate level up to final moisture content of 12±2% was reached. Intensity of warping (twist, bow, cup, crook) occurrence, superficial, internal and end checks, residual stresses, drying rate, and moisture gradient in the dried woods were measured, and the results were analyzed. The results showed that there was a more homogeneous moisture profile, fewer occurrences of superficial checks, and absence of internal checks in the protective drying schedules due to low warping values compared to the unprotective drying schedules. Therefore, it seems that protective drying schedules might be recommended as optimum program for wild cherry lumber drying at commercial scale from Duzce region.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaderas Ciencia y tecnologíaSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207