The Role of Drying Schedule and Conditioning in Moisture Uniformity in Wood: A Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring the moisture content (MC) of wood and avoiding large MC variation is a crucial task as a large moisture spread after drying significantly devalues the product, especially in species with high green MC spread. Therefore, this research aims to optimize kiln-drying and provides a predictive approach to estimate and classify target timber moisture, using a gradient-boosting machine learning model. Inputs include three wood attributes (initial moisture, initial weight, and basic density) and three drying parameters (schedule, conditioning, and post-storage). Results show that initial weight has the highest correlation with the final moisture and possesses the highest relative importance in both predictive and classifier models. This model demonstrated a drop in training accuracy after removing schedule, conditioning, and post-storage from inputs, emphasizing that the drying parameters are significant in the robustness of the model. However, the regression-based model failed to satisfactorily predict the moisture after kiln-drying. In contrast, the classifying model is capable of classifying dried wood into acceptable, over-, and under-dried groups, which could apply to timber pre- and post-sorting. Overall, the gradient-boosting model successfully classified the moisture in kiln-dried western hemlock timber.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".