Field Tests of Naturally Durable Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six wood species generally accepted to represent a range of natural durability were exposed in American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) E7-09 (ground-contact) and AWPA E25-08 (aboveground) decay tests at field sites located near Maple Ridge, British Columbia, and Petawawa, Ontario, in Canada and Gainesville, Florida, and Hilo, Hawaii, in the United States. Variables examined included comparisons of sapwood to heartwood, old growth to second growth, and effect of a protective coating. The tests began between October 2004 and February 2005. Results are reported after 5 years of exposure. Ground-contact decay rates were fastest at sites in Florida and Hawaii. Yellow cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) Örsted), western red cedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don), and eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.) had the highest condition ratings (least decay) for this measure after 5 years of exposure, followed by western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), and then tamarack (Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch). The aboveground decay rate was highest in Hawaii. For this measure, yellow cedar and western red cedar again had the highest average decay ratings (least decay) after 5 years of field exposure, followed by Douglas-fir, western larch, and tamarack. Eastern white cedar did not fit neatly into this pattern. It was durable at three of the four sites but failed rapidly in Hawaii. Sapwood appeared to have a larger impact on aboveground decay than on ground-contact decay. No substantial difference was found between old-growth and second-growth decay rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".