MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173769990

EFFECT OF KNIFE WEAR ON SURFACE QUALITY OF BLACK SPRUCE CANTS PRODUCED BY A CHIPPER-CANTER

2015· article· en· W2173769990 on OpenAlexafffund
Shyamal C. Ghosh, Roger E. Hernández, Carl Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWavinessEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionSurface finishSurface roughnessDie (integrated circuit)Materials scienceComposite materialEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effect of knife wear on surface quality of black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill) B.S.P.) cants machined by a chipper-canter was evaluated.A set of eight canting knives with six levels of edge recession (207, 290, 349, 449, 519, and 549 mm) was studied.Logs were fed at 145 m/min through the canter head rotating at 726 rpm yielding a nominal feed per knife of 25 mm.For each edge recession, two sides of the logs were machined at either unfrozen (above 14 C) or frozen (below 23 C) wood temperatures.Laserscanned profiles across the grain of 16 knife marks on each cant were evaluated for roughness and waviness parameters and depth of torn grain.The results showed that, regardless of log temperature, waviness and roughness were positively affected by edge recession.Roughness was more sensitive than waviness to changes in edge recession.Surfaces in general were smoother in frozen logs than in unfrozen logs.Maximum depth of torn grain appeared to not be significantly affected by knife wear.The results provided useful information for improving the performance of the chipper-canter in terms of surface quality.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology)Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207