MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of temperature and moisture content of logs on size distribution of black spruce chips produced by a chipper-canter at two cutting widths

2021· article· en· W3196146201 on OpenAlexafffund
Imen Elloumi, Roger E. Hernández, Claudia B. Cáceres, Carl Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChipMaterials scienceKnot (papermaking)MoistureWater contentAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Air temperatureComposite materialMathematicsAnimal scienceChromatographyBiologyChemistryElectrical engineeringPhysicsAtmospheric sciencesGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four matched groups of black spruce logs were processed with a chipper-canter at temperatures of 20, 0, -10, and -20 °C. Each log was transformed at two moisture contents (MC, green and air-dried) using two cutting widths (CW, 12.7 and 25.4 mm). Mean MC for each CW was assessed from a sample of the obtained chips. Knot characteristics were measured on the cant surfaces after log processing. Chip size was assessed by thickness (Domtar classifier) and width/length (Williams classifier). The results showed that the chip size was significantly affected by the CW and temperature, and in a lesser degree by the chip MC. The weighted mean chip thickness (WCT) increased with the CW. As temperature decreased below 0 °C, WCT and accepts decreased, while proportions of fines and pin chips increased. Chips obtained from green logs were thinner compared to air-dried logs when processed at the coldest temperature (minus 20 °C). The number and size of knots had an important impact on chip size, particularly on WCT. Multiple regressions were developed to predict WCT. Results showed the potential benefits of measuring log temperature and knot features to reduce chip thickness variation during fragmentation and thus improving chip size uniformity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207