MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Qualitative and quantitative anatomical characteristics and radial variation of major cell components in Paulownia tomentosa wood grown in Korea

2024· article· en· W4392550206 on OpenAlexaff
Jae Ik Jo, Byantara Darsan Purusatama, Yue Qi, Nam–Hun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEcology and Conservation Studies
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaKorea Forest ServiceNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPaulowniaVariation (astronomy)Materials scienceComposite materialBotanyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qualitative and quantitative anatomical characteristics and radial variations of the major cell components in Paulownia tomentosa wood were examined using optical microscopy and X-ray diffraction to aid in wood identification and as quality indices. The vessel arrangement on the transverse surface was either ring-porous or semi-ring-porous. Most vessels had solitary pores, while some vessels had multiple radial pores. The axial parenchyma was generally confluent and partially of aliform type. Tyloses with high frequency in the vessel lumen and multiseriate rays (2 to 5 cells) were typical. The vessel diameter of earlywood and latewood was approximately 240 and 107 μm, respectively, with a range of 165 to 289 μm in earlywood and 55 to 149 μm in latewood. Ray height and fiber length were approximately 178 and 740 μm, respectively. The vessel diameter in both earlywood and latewood and the fiber length increased gradually with an increasing number of growth rings. Ray height was constant from the pith to the middle section and decreased toward the bark. The anatomical characteristics and radial variation of major components of P. tomentosa can be used as wood identification keys and quality indices.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicEcology and Conservation StudiesFrench-language works237,207