MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Foliage influences forced convection heat transfer in conifer branches and buds

2006· article· en· W2122586963 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean T. Michaletz, Edward A. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsForced convectionNusselt numberConvectionBoundary layerHeat transferReynolds numberScalingLaminar flowConvective heat transferAtmospheric sciencesMechanicsGeometryMathematicsPhysicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conifer foliage structures affect branch and bud temperature by altering the development and convective resistance of the thermal boundary layer. This paper examines foliage effects on forced convection in branches and buds of Picea glauca (Moench) Voss and Pinus contorta Dougl. Ex. Loud., two species that represent the range of variation in foliage structure among conifers. Forced convection is characterized by a power law relating Nusselt (heat transfer) and Reynolds (boundary layer development) numbers. Data were collected in a laminar flow wind tunnel for free stream velocities of 0.16-6.95 m s(-1). Scaling parameters were compared against literature values for silver cast branch replicas, a bed of real foliage, cylinders, and tube banks. Foliage structures reduced Nusselt numbers (heat transfer) relative to cylinders, which are typically used to approximate leafless branches and buds. Significantly different scaling relationships were observed for all foliage structures considered. Forced convection scaling relationships varied with foliage structure. The scaling relationships reported here account for variation within populations of branches and buds and can be used to characterize forced convection in a forest canopy.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207