Chemical Elements Content and Distributions within Different Tissue Types of White Spruce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative proportions of different chemical components in wood tissues is one of the underlying factors that control wood properties. These proportions vary within and between woody tissues, and an accurate description of these variations is critical for parameterizing forest biogeochemical budgets and models. White spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) spacing intensities trials in the Petawawa Research Forest, Ontario, Canada, were sampled to evaluate variations in carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and hydrogen (H) concentrations between different tissue types, i.e., bark, cambium, knots, earlywood, latewood, and wood. Samples were freeze-dried and oven-dried to test the impact of the drying methods on these chemical elements. Freeze-dried C (51.14) and H (6.18) concentrations were significantly higher than those of oven-dried C (50.55) and H (6.06). Freeze-dried N (0.18) did not differ from oven-dried N (0.17). The spacing intensities impacted C, H, and N, with C content being higher in wider square spacings (4.3 m and 6.1 m), while the reverse was true for N and H, which exhibited higher content in smaller square spacings (1.2 m and 1.8 m). The results of this study also suggested that when it comes to the content of chemical elements, bark and knots should be treated as separate fuel types, whereas other woody tissues can be aggregated.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".