Using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to Predict Log Moisture Content of Commercially Important Canadian Softwoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The non-destructive testing of wood fibre properties is crucial for informing forest management decisions and achieving optimal resource utilization. Moisture content (MC) is an important indicator of wood freshness and may reveal the presence of wood degradation. However, efficient methods are still needed to better monitor this property along the forest–wood value chain. The objective of the study was to develop prediction models to evaluate log MC based on the propagation of ground penetrating radar (GPR) signals. A total of 165 trees representing four species (black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.), white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.), and balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.)) were harvested in two regions of the province of Quebec. GPR signals were acquired in the green (fresh) state and at three subsequent drying stages. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) and locally weighted PLSR (LWPLSR) were employed to establish relationships between GPR signals (antenna frequency: 1.6 GHz) and log properties. The models were fitted on three calibration sets containing four drying stages and different species mixes. The LWPLSR models performed better than the PLSR models for predicting log MC, with a lower root mean square error (RMSEp range: 10.8%–20.2% vs. 13.0%–20.5%) and a higher R2p (0.63–0.87 vs. 0.62–0.82). Spruce-only models performed considerably better than fir-only models while multi-species models were in-between. Despite the complex anisotropy of wood and the physics of wave propagation, the GPR technology can be successfully used to estimate log moisture content, but the GPR-based MC models should be calibrated for each specific type of wood material.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".