MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313133315 · doi:10.5558/tfc2015-025

Evaluation of Canadian Prairie-Grown Hybrid Poplar for High Value Solid Wood Products

2015· article· en· W2313133315 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Robert Knudson, Gilles Brunette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
FundersFPInnovationsAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsLaminated veneer lumberVeneerEngineered woodHardwoodSolid woodPulp and paper industrySoftwoodMaterials scienceHorticultureComposite materialBotanyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies were carried out to evaluate the suitability of Canadian prairie-grown, short-rotation hybrid poplar for the manufacture of high value solid wood products, including appearance grade lumber, plywood, laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and oriented strandboard (OSB). For appearance grade lumber applications, hybrid poplar was found to be an attractive wood as it machined and finished well. This wood can be finished to take on a number of different looks or to resemble other species. Hybrid poplar would appear suitable in applications such as millwork, mouldings, turnings and bedroom furniture where other softer hardwood species such as red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) are currently being used. Hybrid poplar veneer was suitable for manufacturing high quality plywood, either used by itself, or mixed with other species such as aspen (Populus tremuloides Mich.) or spruce (Picea spp.). If the hybrid poplar veneer is stress graded, a portion of the veneer would be suitable for manufacturing structural grade LVL. Hybrid poplar can be processed commercially using procedures similar to those used for manufacturing aspen plywood and LVL. Properties of OSB manufactured from hybrid poplar were fully equivalent to those of OSB manufactured from aspen. Hybrid poplar can be substituted for aspen in OSB at any level with no apparent effect on panel properties.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207