Sapwood and Heartwood Contents on the Logs and Sawn Boards of Manglid (Manglieta glauca Bl.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to identify the characteristics of sapwood and heartwood of manglid wood both in the logs and sawn boards; and to evaluate the differences of sapwood and heartwood content of sawn board from two sawing patterns: live sawing pattern and semi quarter sawing pattern. Totally 30 manglid logs coming from private forest in Sodonghilir sub-District, Tasikmalaya Regency were used as samples. About 35 sawn boards from each of sawing pattern were randomly chosen as specimens for sawn board observation. Result shows that manglid wood has thicker heartwood content than the sapwood on the log cross section, with the average of the heartwood and sapwood thickness is 17.04 and 6.57 cm, respectively. The thickness of heartwood part is positively correlated with the log diameter. Meanwhile, the percentage of the heartwood volume increases but the percentage of the sapwood decreases by the increasing of the log diameter. The higher thickness of the heartwood part compared to the sapwood part is consistent in the case of sawn board both from live sawing pattern and semi quarter pattern. Sawn board from the live sawing pattern has a lower sapwood percentage than the heartwood percentage on the width section. Key words: heartwood, live sawing, log, sapwood, semi quarter sawing
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".