Drying Behavior of Hardwood Components (Sapwood, Heartwood, and Bark) of Red Oak and Yellow-Poplar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents differences in the drying behavior of red oak and yellow-poplar sapwood, heartwood, and bark and their relationship with selected physical characteristics. Drying experiments were performed on samples of sapwood, heartwood, and bark of respective species at 105 °C under nitrogen conditions. In addition, physical characteristics such as green moisture content, specific gravity, volumetric shrinkage, shrinkage of the cell wall, total porosity, pore volume occupied by water, and specific pore volume were calculated. The results showed that the volumetric and cellular shrinkages of sapwood were greater than those of heartwood for both species. For red oak, the specific gravity of sapwood and heartwood was not significantly different. Additionally, the total porosity of heartwood was lower than that of sapwood in red oak. The results also indicated that yellow-poplar dried faster than red oak. Among all three components, bark dried faster than sapwood and heartwood in both species. The activation energy for sapwood drying was less than for heartwood drying.
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".