MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409359540 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2024-0311

Application of electrical resistance tomograph (ERT): innovative non-destructive method in analysing interiors of standing trees in tropics

2025· article· en· W4409359540 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. N. Divakara, Madan Prasad Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTropicsResistance (ecology)Environmental scienceForestryGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrical resistance tomograph (ERT) is a customized tree specific novel technology that was developed to monitor and estimate the tree growth and development by looking into the inner structure of the standing tree to analyse the growth/heartwood and health/decay status. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is a valuable tool in tropical forestry for assessing the heartwood-sapwood boundary and detecting wood decay. By measuring electrical resistivity at multiple points around a tree trunk, ERT creates detailed profiles of the tree's internal structure, identifying variations in moisture content, density, and decay. This non-invasive method provides accurate, real-time data that aid in sustainable forest management, conservation, and logging decisions. It allows for precise identification of heartwood, sapwood, and decayed areas without harming the tree, making it a cost-effective and eco-friendly approach for monitoring tree health. This paper is addressing the possibility of exploring the application of ERT on economically important tropical trees viz. sandalwood ( Santalum album L.), red sanders ( Pterocarpus santalinus L.f.), and agarwood ( Aquilaria agalocha Roxb.) to know the presence/absence of heartwood/decay in standing trees and, also, to know presence/absence of decay and extent of decay in standing trees using ERT.

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)0.001
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207