MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329448887 · doi:10.5558/tfc2013-111

A review of near-infrared spectroscopy for monitoring moisture content and density of solid wood

2013· review· en· W2329448887 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brigitte Leblon, Oluwatosin E. Adedipe, Guillaume Hans, Ataollah Haddadi, Satoru Tsuchikawa, James Burger, Rod Stirling, Zarin Pirouz, Kevin Groves, Joseph Nader, Armand LaRocque

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater contentSolid woodNear-infrared spectroscopyTransmittanceEnvironmental scienceLigninMaterials scienceSpectroscopyMoistureRemote sensingPulp and paper industryComposite materialChemistryOpticsOptoelectronicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review article examines past and current research on the application of near-infrared (NIR) reflectance/transmittance spectroscopy (NIRS) for real-time monitoring of moisture content and density of solid wood. Most of the applications of NIRS on solid wood have focussed on the application of multivariate statistics as exploratory tools for the prediction of physical, chemical and mechanical properties, such as moisture content, density, stiffness, cellulose and lignin content. However, very few studies on the development of optical models and the use of NIRS transmittance techniques on solid wood have been reported. NIRS technology has the potential to be used as a rapid tool that could be employed for at-line measurement and monitoring of wood properties in the forest products industry.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations101
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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