MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169898559 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0048

Main mechanical properties of new Chinese fir clones and their rapid prediction by near-infrared spectroscopy

2021· article· en· W3169898559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ru Jia, Yurong Wang, Rui Wang, Haiyan Sun, Shengquan Liu, Liang Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectroscopyNear-infrared spectroscopySmoothingMaterials scienceBiological systemInfrared spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Second derivativeMathematicsPhysicsOpticsChemistryStatisticsChromatographyMathematical analysisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Owing to its rapidity and accuracy, near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is a powerful tool to establish appropriate prediction models with an innovative method to evaluate wood properties. To reveal the mechanical qualities of clonal Chinese fir woods and to determine sound prediction models of mechanical properties, four main mechanical properties of six Chinese fir clones (Yang 020, Yang 061, Kaihua 3, Kaihua 13, Daba 8, Kailin 24) were evaluated by NIR spectroscopy. The clones Kaihua 13, Kailin 24, and Yang 020 showed good mechanical properties. To estimate mechanical properties with NIR spectroscopy, different methods should be adopted for different properties. The average spectra of radial and tangential sections combined with multiple scattering correction (MSC) and Savitzky–Golay (S–G) smoothing methods were used to predict the modulus of rupture and modulus of elasticity. By adopting cross section spectra and taking MSC and S–G smoothing methods for pretreatment, the models of compressive strength parallel to grain could deliver the best results. For wood hardness, the models established with average spectra of three sections and first-derivative method were preferred. The correlation coefficients of the prediction models were between 0.84 and 0.90, and those of the calibration models were between 0.75 and 0.96.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207