MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200303267 · doi:10.1515/hf-2021-0080

Estimating moisture content variation in kiln dried Pacific coast hemlock

2021· article· en· W4200303267 on OpenAlexaff
Sohrab Rahimi, Stavros Avramidis, Ciprian Lazarescu

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKilnMoistureWater contentWood dryingRobustness (evolution)Environmental scienceCoefficient of variationVariation (astronomy)MathematicsSoil sciencePulp and paper industryStatisticsMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringWaste managementChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Kiln drying is admittedly a significant value-adding step in timber processing where the importance of predicting moisture within a dried batch cannot be overemphasized. This study predicts and characterizes the moisture variation in kiln-dried wood based on the initial and target moisture values using polynomial models. Four polynomial models are used to correlate initial and final moisture characteristics. First model is linear while the three others are nonlinear. The robustness of the three best models is analyzed and a closed formula is proposed to evaluate the final moisture coefficient of variation based on the target moisture and initial moisture coefficient of variation. Three models could successfully characterize the final moisture variation with the best one showing an R 2 > 96%. However, the first (linear) model is the most resilient and, thus recommended for estimating final moisture variation.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207