Debarking enhancement of frozen logs. Part II: Infrared system for heating logs prior to debarking.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Log volume losses, remaining bark on logs after debarking, and bark content in wood chips are significantly higher in winter than in summer for northern sawmills. It is, therefore, beneficial to raise the temperature of the log prior to debarking. Heating logs before debarking in the winter could generate an estimated savings of up to half a million Canadian dollars for a sawmill processing half a million cubic meters of wood annually. In the past, sawmills used water soaking to thaw logs, but most have stopped this practice due to new environmental regulations that increase water treatment costs. The goal of the project described in this paper was to demonstrate, on a semi-industrial prototype, the applicability of using infrared radiation to preheat black spruce logs. The main objectives were to evaluate specific energy consumption and the profitability of the technology. If all of the economic considerations of bark content in woodchips for the pulp and papermill are considered, the return on investment of an infrared system to preheat frozen logs is believed to be less than 1 year.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".