Extracting greater value from subalpine fir: veneer products.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper, which describes an evaluation of the suitability of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.) for the manufacture of preservative-treated plywood and laminated veneer lumber (LVL), was part of an overall study to explore opportunities to extract greater value from subalpine fir (Knudson et al. 2008, McFarling et al. 2009). Due to preferential logging of lodgepole pine, the availability of subalpine fir in British Columbia is projected to increase significantly, in some regions to as high as 30 percent of the softwood harvest. Logs for the veneer products studied came from five subalpine fir trees (one dominant, one codominant, and three intermediate) from a Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor) logging site in the Fort St. James harvest region of British Columbia. The trees were considered representative of the site type and age class expected to be harvested over the next period of years. Study results indicated that subalpine fir is a satisfactory species for manufacturing construction plywood or lower stiffness grade LVL. This study confirmed that subalpine fir plywood, made from both incised and non-incised veneer, can be preservative treated with alkaline copper quat (ACQ-D) and copper azole to meet CSA 080.15-97 PWF standard (CSA 1997). Currently subalpine fir plywood is not used for permanent wood foundations (PWF) because it cannot be treated with copper chromated arsenate to meet the CSA standard. Other British Columbia softwood species that are usually processed with subalpine fir are classified as unsuitable for preservative treatment. This study indicates that a 100 percent subalpine fir plywood panel substrate would be suitable for PWFs when treated with amine copper preservatives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".