The interrelation between microfibril angle (MFA) and hygrothermal recovery (HTR) in compression wood and normal wood of <i>Sugi</i> and <i>Agathis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tree growth stress (GS) consists of an elastic component and a viscoelastic locked-in component. The elastic component is released instantaneously by cutting wood, whereas the locked-in component remains. The latter can be released by hot water treatment, which is known as hygrothermal recovery (HTR). In this paper the mechanism behind HTR is described and interpreted in terms of the microfibril angle (MFA) in the cell wall as follows: during cell-wall maturation, axial tensile stress is generated in the cellulose microfibrils (CMF), whereas isotropic compressive stress is generated in the matrix of lignin-hemicellulose (MT). Some amount of microscopic stresses remains following the removal of the wood from the living stem. Hygrothermal (HT) treatment induces recovery of remaining compressive stress in the MT, which causes its expansion. Axial tensile stress in the CMF are released by HT softening of the MT. This causes the CMF to contract along its length and to expand laterally. The combined effect of the expansions of the MT and contraction of the CMF causes the wood to deform anisotropically. This is the HTR of wood. The degree of anisotropy is determined by the MFA on the basis of reinforced-matrix theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".