MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2361654822

An Estimation of Heating Rates in Sub-Alpine Fir Lumber

2005· article· en· W2361654822 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Liping Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceFPInnovations
KeywordsKilnWater contentWood dryingEnvironmental scienceMoistureEnergy densityAbies lasiocarpaGreen woodWet-bulb temperaturePulp and paper industryMass transferMaterials scienceWaste managementMeteorologyComposite materialMontane ecologyEngineeringHumidityThermodynamicsGeotechnical engineeringGeographyEngineering physicsPhysicsEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this research were to explore the effects of moisture content on heating rates in subalpine fir lumber and to develop a user-friendly computer program to predict heating times during heat-treatment. A correction factor ϵ that can adjust the mass transfer coefficient based on the change of the moisture content was determined through the experiments. When moisture content, density, lumber size, initial and target temperatures, air velocity, dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures of the kiln are entered, the change of temperature with time can be predicted by the program. The results from the experiments and the data of previous publications confirmed that the program can be used to estimate heating times not only for sub-alpine fir, but also for other species. The results also indicated that heating wood with higher moisture content requires more energy and longer time than that with lower moisture content.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology)Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207