MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405592758 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2024-0270

Nondestructive measurement of microfibril angle of wood by using near-infrared spectroscopy

2024· article· en· W4405592758 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miho Kojima, Yohei Kurata, Hisashi Abe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofibrilNondestructive testingMaterials scienceSpectroscopyEnvironmental scienceOpticsComposite materialAnalytical Chemistry (journal)EngineeringChemistryPhysicsCelluloseEnvironmental chemistryAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast-growing tree species, such as Eucalyptus, are used extensively in plantations for timber, but their mechanical properties are not well understood, especially the microfibril angle (MFA), which affects wood stiffness. MFA measurement is complex and expensive, but near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) offers a non-destructive alternative. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of NIRS in predicting MFA across different regions and environments. The results showed that NIRS could predict MFA, but the accuracy varied. In Brazil, higher prediction accuracy was observed when data from multiple regions were combined. In Laos, the presence of juvenile wood significantly decreased prediction accuracy. Combining data from multiple sites improved prediction accuracy, but decreased accuracy when juvenile wood was included. The study concludes that effective MFA prediction models must consider regional and environmental differences. Creating region-specific models is necessary for reliable wood quality assessment using NIRS. This research underscores the potential of NIRS as a practical tool for wood quality evaluation, highlighting the importance of accounting for factors such as wood maturity and environmental conditions in developing robust predictive models.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207