MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2488030358

Study of geographical variation in kiln-drying behavior of plantation-grown white spruce

2003· article· en· W2488030358 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jean Beaulieu, Bruno Girard, Yves Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsShrinkageKilnReforestationEnvironmental scienceWood dryingPulp and paper industrySoftwoodForestryWater contentHorticultureAgroforestryGeographyBiologyMaterials scienceEngineeringWaste managementComposite materialGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whitc spruce (Pic.atr,y1(111c,o (Moenchl Voss) is one of the most important tree species for reforestotion in Canada.Ovcl-thc past 30 years, hundreds of thousands of hectares were planted.Plantationgrown wood will become an important source of supply for the lumber industry in the near future.Plantation wood i\ generally known to have a greater proportion of juvenile wood than that from natural stands.For this reason.cluality attributes of lumber from plantations might be considerably reduced, e\pccially after kiln-drying.However, these quality attributes might be influenced by the origin of the serd sources used for the reforestation program.The main purpose of this study was to investigate the genetic variation in the effect of kiln-drying under restraint on shrinkage and warp of dimen\ion lumber processed from 26 provenances originating from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Region.Two drying treatments were applied, i.e. conventional and high-temperature drying.Analyses of v~iriance showed no significant dirferences among provenances for any type of shrinkage (longitudinal shrinkage.shrinkage in thickness.shrinkage in width) or warp (bow, crook, twist) measurements.For the cflkct of the drying treatment, it was significant only in the case of shrinkage in width.Kr\.\~.ortl.\:Kiln-drying.reslraint.shrinkage, warp, plantation' SCC I':~hle I l r n dcltnlll<u,\.'ill.dt.f~cc\ 01 ftcrduln.dln.dcgrec, 01 Ilrrili,m r l t the niimel:ltol.did.degrccr ot I!.eedorn ot the ilcnomtn;lt<,r -'K;tnilom cficcl\ die nc,l \hewn heuauw tlic) arc 1101 <,I Intslt.\lIn thc cul.lcnt \ludy.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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