Alternative sustainable Mexican tropical woods for classical guitar frameboards and fretboards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sustainable wood species suitable for constructing frameboards and fretboards of classical guitars and other string musical instruments, are identified and proposed as alternatives to wood species traditionally used for these purposes, but being currently ecologically endangered. Two sets of wood species were considered: (1) experimental woods, as possible alternatives, and (2) reference woods, traditionally in use, but considered at risk. Wood samples were studied in terms of anatomical characteristics: sizes of vessels, fibers, rays, and the corresponding ratios, amount of extractives, type and amount of axial parenchyma; and also in terms of physical vibration characteristics. Experimental woods of low mass density also have vibration qualities below those found among the reference wood species. The anatomical characteristics observed in these low density wood species feature large vessel diameters, thin fiber walls, and low amounts of extractives and parenchyma. Experimental woods of higher densities show larger, more adequate vibration parameters, and a variety of cellular characteristics, with modest amounts of extractives. Reference woods show larger transmission, more desirable vibration properties, diverse vessel diameters, with significantly thick fiber cell walls, and abundant axial parenchyma and extractives. Results were analyzed in terms of different variables, showing clustering of wood species according to anatomical and physical vibration similarities. This study allows recognizing characteristics closely equivalent to the reference woods among some of the experimental wood species, making them suitable for classical guitar frameboards and fretboards, as well as identifying some experimental wood species not necessarily suitable for this purpose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".