MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272593271

Quality of baled shrub aspen stored for one year

2013· article· en· W2272593271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ehsan Oveisi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceShrubRelative humidityWater contentForageMoistureBiomass (ecology)Wind speedCanopyAnimal scienceAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyAgronomyBotanyGeographyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates a number of physical and compositional properties of baled shrub aspen during storage. The biomass consisted of regenerated 6-year old aspen shrubs in Alberta. A modified round baler for forage was used to cut and bale the shrubs in a single pass. Four bales were transported to Vancouver British Columbia where the bales were stored for a period of one year, June 2011-May 2012. Two bales were stored under a canopy. The other two bales were left exposed. The monthly measured quality factors for each of the four bales consisted of bale dimensions, mass, moisture and ash content, color, and calorific value. Daily averaged weather data that included temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, wind speed and direction and solar radiation were recorded. The initial mass of bales averaged 255 to 314 kg. The averaged mass of bales reached to a maximum of 375 kg in December-January but then the mass dropped to the original mass of about 175 kg in May 2012. Moisture content of covered bales showed month to month variation without any specific trend. The exposed bales showed a steady increase in moisture until Dec-Jan and then a decrease following the trend in mass of bales. Ash content showed variations between 0.91 to 2.45. It was difficult to associate these variations to changes in material constituents or to variations in sampling method. The biomass became grayish in color with storage.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207