Effect of cutting width and cutting height on the surface quality of black spruce cants produced by a chipper-canter.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of the cutting height and cutting width on the surface quality of black spruce cants produced by a chipper-canter were evaluated. Three diameter classes (102, 152, and 203 mm dia as measured at the small end of the log) were studied, each processed using two cutting widths (12.5 and 25 mm). The rotation and feed speeds, kept constant at 783 rpm and 197 m/min, respectively, yielded a nominal feed per knife (chip length) of 31.5 mm. Twelve logs for each cutting condition were processed under frozen and unfrozen wood temperatures (winter and summer). The surface quality was analyzed using roughness and waviness standard parameters. Torn grain was evaluated by means of its maximum depth. The results showed that surface quality was affected by cutting height, cutting width, and temperature of logs. In general, surface quality was better when processing unfrozen logs at lower cutting width and height. Surface quality also varied within the cant, being generally better at the small end of the log and at the upper part of the cant. The results give useful information to improve the performance of the chipper-canter in terms of surface quality.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".