Influence of regeneration method on juvenile jack pine clear wood static bending properties and specific gravity / by Karen L. Jackson.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of regeneration method on three wood properties of jack pine, along different vertical positions, grown in northwestern Ontario were evaluated. A multi-staged nested sampling design was used to randomly select 12 trees, approximately 25 years of age, from four stands that were aerial seeded, Bracke seeded, planted and post fire naturally regenerated. Within each tree, small clear wood samples (2 cm x 2 cm x 30 cm) were obtained from three vertical positions: 1 m, 2 m and 4 m, for the determination of static bending properties - modulus of elasticity (MOE) and modulus of rupture (MOR) - and specific gravity. Data analysis revealed that all three wood properties, MOE, MOR and specific gravity were not significantly different statistically (a <= 0.05) between regeneration methods. Further analysis into the influence of vertical positions revealed that MOE was not significantly different with height for all regeneration methods. In contrast, MOR was found to significantly vary between the \nbottom and top positions for the aerial seeded and naturally regenerated stands. With respect to specific gravity, a significant difference in vertical position was evident between the bottom and top bolts for the aerial seeded, Bracke seeded and natural stands. These findings have revealed that wood properties of juvenile jack pine are quite variable no matter what regeneration method is implemented. Moreover, in the future there may be potential in dividing jack pine logs along the stem for various uses based \non regeneration method. \nThe relationship between MOR and specific gravity, and MOE and specific \ngravity were investigated for all vertical positions and for each regeneration method. Linear and curvilinear equations were used to compare the variation in mechanical properties as a function of specific gravity. In all cases, a significant (a <= 0.05) positive relationship existed between specific gravity and MOR or MOE. The relationship between MOR and specific gravity is equally well explained by linear and curvilinear \nequations, whereas the relationship between MOE and specific gravity is better explained by a linear equation than by a curvilinear equation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".