Identification of North American softwoods via machine-learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript reports the feasibility of a sequential convolutional neural network (CNN) machine-learning model that correctly identifies 11 North American softwood species from 14× magnified macroscopic end-grain images. The convolutional network contained a large kernel size, max pooling layers, and leaky rectified linear units to accelerate training. To reduce overfitting of training data, we employed L2 regularization, custom initialization, and stratified 5-fold cross-validation techniques. The database consisted of 1789 wood end-grain images. The training data set consisted of 1431 images, whereas the validation set had approximately 358 images. In both sets, the input image size was 227 pixels × 227 pixels. Data augmentation was performed on-the-fly by flipping, rotating, and zooming the images. We tested the performance of the CNN against precision, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and adjusted accuracy. The adjusted accuracy for the entire model was 94.0%. Confusion matrices indicated the lowest performance was in correctly classifying ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Douglas ex P. Lawson & C. Lawson) and eastern spruce (Picea spp. A. Dietr.) group with an average sensitivity of 89.0% for each. Even though high validation accuracy (>94.0%) was achieved, we concluded that a much larger data set is needed for wood identification to obtain industrially accurate identification of softwoods, mainly due to their visual and macroscopic similarities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".