MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974424967 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2018-0409

Computed tomography (CT) scanning of internal log attributes prior to sawing increases lumber value in white spruce (<i>Picea glauca</i>) and jack pine (<i>Pinus banksiana</i>)

2019· article· en· W2974424967 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Denis Belley, Isabelle Duchesne, Steve Vallerand, Julie Barrette, Michel Beaudoin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)Pinus <genus>MathematicsSolid woodBlack spruceHorticulturePulp and paper industryForestryMaterials scienceBotanyComposite materialBiologyEngineeringTaiga

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased pressure on timber supply due to a reduced forest land base urges the development of new approaches to fully capture the value of forest products. This paper investigates the effects of knowing the position of knots on lumber volume, value, and grade recoveries in curve sawing of 31 white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and 22 jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) trees. Internal knot position was evidenced by X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging, followed by the application of a knot-detection algorithm allowing log reconstruction for use as input in the Optitek sawing simulation software. Comparisons of the three levels of sawing optimization (sweep up, shape optimized, and knot optimized) revealed that considering internal knots before log sawing (e.g., knot optimized) generated 23% more lumber value for jack pine and 15% more for white spruce compared with the traditional sweep-up sawing strategy. In terms of lumber quality, the knot-optimized strategy produced 38% more pieces of grade No. 2 and better in jack pine and 15% more such pieces in white spruce compared with the sweep-up strategy. These results indicate a great potential to increase manufacturing efficiency and profitability by implementing the CT scanning technology, which should aid in developing a strong bioeconomy based on an optimized use of wood.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207