Prediction of Mechanical Properties of Artificially Weathered Wood by Color Change and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Color parameters were used in this study to develop a machine learning model for predicting the mechanical properties of artificially weathered fir, alder, oak, and poplar wood. A CIELAB color measuring system was employed to study the color changes in wood samples. The color parameters were fed into a decision tree model for predicting the MOE and MOR values of the wood samples. The results indicated a reduction in the mechanical properties of the samples, where fir and alder were the most and least degraded wood under weathering conditions, respectively. The mechanical degradation was correlated with the color change, where the most resistant wood to color change exhibited less reduction in the mechanical properties. The predictive machine learning model estimated the MOE and MOR values with a maximum R2 of 0.87 and 0.88, respectively. Thus, variations in the color parameters of wood can be considered informative features linked to the mechanical properties of small-sized and clear wood. Further research could study the effectiveness of the model when analyzing large-sized timber.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".