MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993585219

Acoustic constant property of Interior spruce (Picea spp.) from the central interior of British Columbia.

2005· article· en· W2993585219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Parfitt Lj, Hartley Id, Stavros Avramidis

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Products Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicea engelmanniiElevation (ballistics)LatitudeSignificant differenceLongitudePicea abiesForestryGeographyGeologyEnvironmental scienceBotanyBiologyMathematicsGeodesyGeometryStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine if tonewood qualities of Interior spruce, a common name used to describe the grouping of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelannii [Parry] Engelm.) and white spruce (P. glauca [Moench]), were different between two stands. The two stands selected were near McBride, British Columbia, Canada (latitude 53.3053°; longitude -120.206°) and were approximately 20 km apart, with an elevation difference of approximately 700 m. There were 20 and 11 samples taken from the lower elevation and the higher elevation stands, respectively. Billets from the mature sapwood zone of the trees were equilibrated at about 6 percent moisture content. A sound wave timer was used to determine the velocity of the sound wave in the longitudinal direction and the ovendry density was determined. The acoustic constant (AC) value was determined and the results showed no statistical difference in the AC values between the two stands. However, there was a significant difference in the density between the two stands. The density was greater for the higher elevation stand, suggesting Engelmann spruce as the dominate species, and suggesting that white spruce, having a lower density, was at the lower elevation site. However, despite the density difference, the AC values were statistically the same.

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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.183
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Products JournalSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207