MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479902838

FUNGI COLONIZING DOUGLAS-FIR IN COOLING TOWERS: IDENTIFICATION AND THEIR DECAY CAPABILITIES

2005· article· en· W2479902838 on OpenAlexaff
Gyu Hyeok Kim, Dae Sun Son, Jae Jin Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKorea University
KeywordsBiologyBotanyCeratocystisChromated copper arsenateMicrofungiSoftwoodChaetomium globosumAcremoniumDouglas firHorticultureAlternaria alternataFungusFood science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was performed to identify microfungi isolated from chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated-Douglas-fir members in cooling towers, and to test for their capacities to cause weight loss, anatomical damage, and strength losses in Douglas-fir and Keruing heartwood. Among 26 fungal species isolated, Acremonium sp., Fusarium spp., Trichoderma spp., Phialophora spp., and Alternaria alternata were most frequently isolated, constituting approximately 75% of all isolates. Half of the fungi, representing about 60% of all isolates, caused soft-rot damage. Microscopic examination revealed that most of the fungi eroded the cell wall (Type 2 damage), and soft-rot types did not differ with wood species. Strength reductions by fungal attack were not significant compared to controls although one fungal species (Monocillium sp. KUC 3016) produced significant strength loss on Douglas-fir, and three species (Gonabotrys simplex, Phialophora mutabilis KUC 3022, and Phialophora mutabilis KUC 3039) caused significant strength loss on Keruing. The results indicate that some soft-rot fungi can affect wood properties significantly, and their potential to affect the service life of wood members in cooling towers must be considered.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations9
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