Natural durability indicators in young plantation and native forest regrowth Gympie messmate (<i>Eucalyptus cloeziana</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding the durability of emerging plantation hardwood resources is important for optimising their production and use. This study compared timber density, extractives content and decay resistance in 12–13-year-old plantation and native forest regrowth Gympie messmate (Eucalyptus cloeziana) trees. Density increased from pith to bark for both plantation and native forest trees. Inner heartwood density of the plantation timber was significantly lower than that of the native forest regrowth timber. While the total extractives content of the outer heartwood was comparable in the plantation and native forest regrowth trees, the inner heartwood of the latter contained significantly greater extractives levels. Laboratory decay tests showed that all heartwood zones of plantation and native forest regrowth Gympie messmate were resistant to decay by the white rot Pycnoporus coccineus. The inner heartwood of the plantation timber was, however, susceptible to decay by the brown rot Fomitopsis ostreiformis. The results illustrate the potential variations in wood quality parameters to be considered when moving from native forest to plantation resources that are harvested at a younger age and managed for more rapid wood production.
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) | 0.001 | 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".