MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937921738 · doi:10.3390/f10040339

Intra-Ring Variations and Interrelationships for Selected Wood Anatomical and Physical Properties of Thuja Occidentalis L.

2019· article· en· W2937921738 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Besma Bouslimi, Ahmed Koubaa, Yves Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune
KeywordsTracheidJuvenileThujaHomogeneousBotanyBiologyDendrochronologyMaximum densityHorticultureMaterials scienceComposite materialMathematicsEcologyPhysicsPaleontologyXylem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intra-ring variation in wood density and tracheid anatomical properties and wood property interrelationships were investigated in Thuja occidentalis L. Samples were taken from three stands in Abitibi–Témiscamingue, Quebec, Canada. The structure of T. occidentalis wood is simple, homogeneous and uniform, which is desirable for wooden structures that require wood uniformity. From early- to latewood, cell and lumen diameter decreased, while cell wall thickness increased. These changes led to an increase of the cell wall proportion. Wood ring density and width interrelationships were weaker in mature wood compared to juvenile wood. Earlywood density is the more important in determining mature wood density than latewood density and proportion. Earlywood density explains 92% and 89% of the variation in juvenile and mature wood density, respectively. The negative relationship between ring density and width, although significant, was low and tends to weaken with increasing tree age, thus providing the opportunity for silvicultural practices to improve both growth and wood density. Ring width was positively and strongly correlated to early- and latewood width, but negatively correlated to tracheid length and latewood proportion. Accordingly, increases in ring width produce smaller tracheids and wider earlywood without a corresponding increase in latewood. Practical implications of the results are discussed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207