MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maturation Stress and Wood Properties of Poplar (<i>Populus × euramericana</i> ‘Zhonglin46’) Tension Wood

2023· preprint· en· W4380738552 on OpenAlexaff
Yamei Liu, Xiao Wu, Jingliang Zhang, Shengquan Liu, Katherine Semple, Chunping Dai

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsTension (geology)Young's modulusComposite materialMaterials scienceMicrofibrilBendingModulusElasticity (physics)HorticultureBotanyChemistryUltimate tensile strengthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding maturation stress and wood properties of poplar tension wood are critical for improving lumber yields and utilization ratio. In this study, Released Longitudinal Maturation Strains (RLMS), anatomical features, physical and mechanical properties, and nano-mechanical properties of the cell wall were analyzed at different peripheral positions and heights in nine inclined, 12-year-old poplar (Populus×euramericana ‘Zhonglin46’) trees. The correlations between RLMS and wood properties were determined. The results showed that there were mixed effects of artificial inclination on wood quality and properties. The upper sides of inclined stems had higher RLMS, proportion of G-layer, bending modulus of elasticity, and elastic modulus of cell wall but lower microfibril angle than the lower sides. At heights between 0.7 m and 2.2 m, only the double wall thickness increased with height, RLMS and other wood properties such as fiber length and basic density fluctuated or changed little with height. RLMS was a good indicator of wood properties in the tension wood area and at heights between 0.7 m and 1.5 m. The results of this study present opportunities to identify and select better quality wood in poplar trees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207