MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467925009

Characterization and modeling of knots in black spruce (picea mariana) logs

2001· article· en· W2467925009 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hugo Lemieux, Michel Beaudoin, S. Y. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)Black spruceMathematicsGeometryForestryMaterials scienceComposite materialGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A knot study on black spruce was performed on 21 trees originating from a natural stand located in Quebec. Branch (knot) frequency, distribution, and diameter along different directions in the trees were evaluated. A destructive protocol for dissection was developed to slice each knot into a series of sections for modeling the knot morphology (or internal distribution) within the log. In addition, attempts were made to establish the relationship between external branch parameters and internal knot morphology. The study showed that there were higher numbers of knots on the southern sides of the trees than on the northern sides, but the knot diameters on average were smaller on the southern sides. This heterogeneous distribution of knots around the stem may increase the chance of finding a log rotation that is optimal for lumber grade yield when the knots are considered during breakdown. The dissection data were smoothed with second degree polynomial equations using an SAS® program. The equations yielded knot angles and other knot dimensional characteristics. The study indicated that internal knots in black spruce logs showed large variations in their angles, but their diameters could be predicted from the external measurements. This information is particularly important for sawing and grading models that require precise diameter data.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2001
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