MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2353062690 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0022

Modelling the variability of density and bending properties of Norway spruce structural timber

2016· article· en· W2353062690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carolin Fischer, Geir I. Vestøl, Olav Høibø

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsPicea abiesForestryEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Density, modulus of elasticity (MOE), and bending strength (MOR) are important properties of structural timber, and knowledge about the variability of these properties is important to make efficient use of the timber. To utilize such information in the production of structural timber, the information must be available before sawing. This study presents models describing the variability of density and bending properties of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) boards within individual trees, as well as among trees and stands, based on geographical data and forest inventory data including external tree measurements. The models were based on 1551 boards from 17 sites in Southern Norway, Eastern Norway, and Trøndelag. Important variables describing variation in density, MOE, and MOR between sites were site index and elevation. For density, latitude gave additional information. Age, diameter at breast height, and longitudinal position within the tree were the most important variables at the tree level. The models explained major parts of the site variance of all properties, and for MOR, they explained a substantial part of the variance due to trees. In addition to being used for predicting the properties of structural timber from current forest resources, the models also provide information that can be used to predict the effects of silviculture on timber properties in future forest stands.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207