James A. Duke. 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The balsam or pitch, in extreme emergency, forms a highly concentrated, though disagreeable, food (Fernald, Kinsey, and Rollins, 1958). Bark of conifers, mostly, was so important in the diet of some tribes that at least one tribe, the Adirondacks, owe their name to the Mohawk term for “tree eaters. ” Erika Gaertner devotes a four-page article to the making of breadstuff from the bark of balsam fir. In contrast to pine bark, the fir bark is a delight to chew in winter or early spring, slightly mucilaginous and sweetish, better raw than cooked (Gaertner, 1970). Inner bark that does not show any discoloration can be used for breadstuff and it takes about an hour to peel enough for one loaf. Leaves average 0.65 % essential oil, ranging to 1.4 % or higher. Trunks also yield oil of “Canada balsam ” or turpentine, used as a permanent mounting medium in microscopy and as a cement for glassware. Canada turpentine yields 15–25 % volatile oil, the resin being used for caulking and incense (Erichsen-Brown, 1979). Often used for Christmas trees. Abies species are commercially valuable for timber even though their wood is relatively soft, weak, and perishable. Balsam fir is used in the US for timber and plywood, and is the mainstay of the pulp wood industry in the northeast. Folk Medicine According to Hartwell (1967–1971), the buds, resin, and/or sap are used in folk remedies for cancers, corns, and warts. Reported to be anodyne, antiseptic, diaphoretic, diuretic, masticatory, and vulnerary, balsam fir is a
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.237 | 0.255 |
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".