Feasibility of Producing Non-Structural Wood Products Using Trembling Aspen Lumber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) is abundant in Canada but underutilized in non-structural solid wood products.This study was aimed at evaluating the feasibility of using aspen lumber to produce flooring, moulding, and siding. The shrinkage, surface roughness, and wettability of aspen wood were tested. The surface hardness, screw withdrawal resistance, colour change, and dimensional stability of there products fabricated were examined. The wood yield of each product was analyzed. It was found that aspen showed superior machinability and wettability to silver maple and yellow poplar. Aspen flooring had a Brinell hardness of 13.47 MPa, 60% lower than silver maple. Aspen moulding exhibited a screw withdrawal resistance of 23.42 MPa, 15% higher than eastern white pine. Aspen siding showed comparable colour and dimensional stability to spruce-pine-fir wood. The aspen wood yields were estimated to be 38.25%, 25.4%, and 49.2% for flooring, moulding, and siding, suggesting its potential for non-structural applications.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".