Comparison between static modulus of elasticity, non-destructive testing moduli of elasticity and stress-wave speed in white spruce and lodgepole pine wood
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Static bending tests to measure modulus of elasticity (MOEST) or wood stiffness provide an indicator of the structural performance of a finished product. These tests are however, slow and expensive. Tests to measure MOE using non-destructive testing (NDT) provide alternatives to MOEST tests; however, relationships between the different modes of measurement need to be established. Non-destructive testing MOE measured by two methods (SilviScan [MOESS] and time of flight [MOETOF]) have been compared with MOEST for lodgepole pine and white spruce. The relationships between stress wave speed (SWS) and MOEST have also been evaluated. Simple linear regressions of MOESS, MOETOF, and SWS had greater explanatory power (higher coefficients of determination (R2)) than did multiple linear regressions including growth rate or other wood fibre attributes. Simple linear regression from MOETOF and MOESS on MOEST had lower R2 for lodgepole pine than for white spruce; however, the converse was true for SWS. SWS had the highest R2 (89%) and MOESS the lowest R2 (47%) when regressed on MOEST in lodgepole pine. The results were tool and species specific, suggesting that R2 between MOEST and non-destructive testing MOE values must be validated separately for each commercial tree species and for each measurement technique.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it