MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281560036 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2022-0077

Towards sustainable North American wood product value chains, part 2: computer vision identification of ring-porous hardwoods

2022· article· en· W4281560036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prabu Ravindran, Adam C. Wade, Frank C. Owens, Rubin Shmulsky, Alex C. Wiedenhoeft

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicWood and Agarwood Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of State
KeywordsHardwoodArtificial intelligenceIdentification (biology)SoftwoodMachine learningPorosityComputer sciencePulp and paper industryWood industryEnvironmental scienceAgricultural engineeringPattern recognition (psychology)Materials scienceEngineeringBotanyComposite materialForestryGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wood identification is vitally important for ensuring the legality of North American hardwood value chains. Computer vision wood identification (CVWID) systems can identify wood without necessitating costly and time-consuming off-site visual inspections by highly trained wood anatomists. Previous work by Ravindran and colleagues presented macroscopic CVWID models for identification of North American diffuse porous hardwoods from 22 wood anatomically informed classes using the open-source XyloTron platform. This manuscript expands on that work by training and evaluating complementary 17-class XyloTron CVWID models for the identification of North American ring porous hardwoods — woods that display spatial heterogeneity in earlywood and latewood pore size and distribution and other radial growth-rate-related features. Deep-learning models trained using 4045 images from 452 ring-porous wood specimens from four xylaria demonstrated 98% five-fold cross-validation accuracy. A field model trained on all the training data and subsequently tested on 198 specimens drawn from two additional xylaria achieved top-1 and top-2 predictions of 91.4% and 100%, respectively, and images devoid of earlywood, latewood, or broad rays did not greatly reduce the prediction accuracy. This study advocates for continued cooperation between wood anatomy and machine-learning experts for implementing and evaluating field-operational CVWID systems.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood and Agarwood ResearchFrench-language works237,207