MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nomenclature for Engineered Bamboo

2015· article· en· W2194011519 on OpenAlexafffund
Xianmiao Liu, Gregory D. Smith, Zehui Jiang, Maximilian Bock, Felix Boeck, O. Frith, Ana Gatóo, Kewei Liu, Helen Mulligan, Kate Semple, Bhavna Sharma, Michael H. Ramage

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBamboo properties and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInternational Centre for Bamboo and RattanNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of CambridgeEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsTerminologyBambooStandardizationNomenclatureAmbiguityComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Diversity (politics)Construction engineeringArchitectural engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessPolitical scienceMathematicsBiologyTaxonomy (biology)EcologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, there has been a rapid rise in the development of engineered bamboo materials, which have the potential to play an important role as alternatives to conventional building materials. Despite the growing diversity of bamboo products available on the market, the international standardization of both bamboo products and their constituent elements is limited, and a lack of universal nomenclature is recognized as one of the main constraints on developing standards. Similar or identical terminology is used interchangeably to describe different bamboo elements, processes, or products across sectors and continents. In some cases, translated colloquial names are misleading and scientifically inaccurate, which forms a barrier to global collaboration and research, creates ambiguity, and potentially limits trade. The present work aims to address this gap by proposing a set of appropriate terms in English that accurately describe and differentiate between currently produced engineered bamboo products and their constituent elements, accompanied by parallel terms in Chinese and Spanish. From these, new categories of engineered bamboo building materials are proposed for the Harmonized System of product codes. This paper highlights current ambiguities and provides terminology together with clear definitions of the main primary elements, processing steps, and products.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations65
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicBamboo properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207