MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2494143467

VARIATION IN TREE GROWTH, WOOD DENSITY, AND PULP FIBER PROPERTIES OF 35 WHITE SPRUCE (PICEA GLAUCA (MOENCH) VOSS) FAMILIES GROWN IN QUEBEC

2004· article· en· W2494143467 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Isabelle Duchesne, S. Y. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulp (tooth)SoftwoodUltimate tensile strengthComposite materialHorticultureMaterials scienceFiberMathematicsPulp and paper industryBotanyBiologyEngineeringDentistryMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thirty-five fast-growing white spruce families planted at two sites were compared for their growth, wood and fiber properties. The analysis was made at family level, and each family comprised four individual trees. There was a significant difference in growth rate (expressed as mean annual ring width) between the two sites, and trees grew faster at Lac St-Ignace site compared to Valcartier site. The faster tree growth rates recorded at Lac St-Ignace site resulted in significantly shorter fibers for 33 of the 35 families analyzed in comparison to Valcartier, but had no significant effect on basic wood density and fiber coarseness. The pulping properties varied between the three families analyzed at two sites. Overall, the handsheet tear index properties were low but the tensile indices were high. The fastest-growing families at Lac St-Ignace site tended to have lower tear index and pulp yields but slightly higher handsheet densities than the same families grown at Valcartier site. Thus, the white spruce pulps appear more appropriate for better bonded paper grades where surface smoothness and good printability are required rather than for paper grades where high sheet strength is required.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2004
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