MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117373161 · doi:10.1080/07373937.2014.988221

Application of a Model to Simulate the Wetting and Drying Processes of Woody Biomass in the Field

2015· article· en· W2117373161 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiao He, Anthony Lau, Shahab Sokhansanj, Jim Lim, Xiaotao Bi

Bibliographic record

VenueDrying Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBritish Columbia Innovation CouncilNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Water contentEnvironmental scienceMoistureRelative humidityWettingPrecipitationHumidityWind speedBioenergySoil scienceBiofuelMeteorologyMaterials scienceAgronomyWaste managementEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The variation of moisture content in the biomass materials would affect the quality during the utilization of these materials as solid biofuel. The ability to predict the time-dependent moisture contents of the biomass via modeling can help to devise a better way to store and manage these biomass materials. In this study, pieces of aspen stems were subject to cycles of wetting and drying in lab-scale tests. A lumped mathematical model for simulating the moisture changes during storage was developed and calibrated using the experimental data. With the available weather data (air temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, wind speed, and precipitation) as inputs, the model was then applied to estimate the moisture content of aspen (Populus tremuloides) during one year of storage in the field. Results showed that, for both uncovered bales and covered bales, the predicted moisture contents and the profiles were in good agreement with the measured in-field results. This lumped model may be used as a first approximation, and applied to estimate the moisture content of aspen or similar woody biomass materials during relatively long-term field storage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrying TechnologySame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207