Towards strand production in primary log breakdown: Effects of the counter-knife and temperature on size distribution of Jack pine strands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of counter-knife and wood temperature were studied relative to the size distribution of Jack pine strands processed by a strander-canter. Studied factors included the counter-knife angle (60°, 75°, 90°, and 105°) and the distance between the edges of the counter-knife and knife (6 mm, 11 mm, and 16 mm). The nominal cutting speed was fixed at 25 m/s. Rotation and feed speeds were adjusted to obtain a target strand length of 102 mm, while the target strand thickness was 0.9 mm. The stranding process was performed under two log temperatures, i.e., -13.4 °C (frozen condition) and 18.6 °C (unfrozen condition). Results showed that the proportion of strands, fines, pin chips, and strands’ width were affected by the counter-knife angle and wood temperature. The proportion of strands and the mean strand width increased as the counter-knife angle decreased, while conversely, the proportion of fines and pin chips decreased. Frozen logs produced narrower strands and more fines and pin chips than unfrozen logs. The highest strand proportion, lowest fines and pin chips proportions, and wider strands were obtained with a counter-knife angle of 60° for frozen wood and 75° for unfrozen wood.
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".