MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569220937 · doi:10.1515/hf-2016-0120

Water sorption hysteresis in wood: I review and experimental patterns – geometric characteristics of scanning curves

2017· article· en· W2569220937 on OpenAlexaff
Jingbo Shi, Stavros Avramidis

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHysteresisSorptionMaterials scienceMesoporous materialPorosityMetastabilityNanoporousPorous mediumChemical physicsThermodynamicsChemical engineeringComposite materialAdsorptionChemistryNanotechnologyPhysicsPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The origin of sorption hysteresis in the wood-water system is still under debate. In nanoporous-fluid systems, in general, hysteresis is explained as the manifestation of metastable states in a single pore-fluid system and that is further complicated by the pore connectivity. Cell walls are considered as micro-mesoporous materials and capillary condensation in the entire hygroscopic region is proposed as an alternative sorption mechanism. In the present work, the woods of Douglas-fir, aspen and western red cedar were in focus and the pore connectivity has been investigated by observing five experimentally generated hysteresis patterns comprised by up to 4thscanning curves at 25 and 40°C. Special attention was given to the congruency property from one pattern as it is known from the literature that deviation from this property can reveal the extent of pore connectivity. Consistent patterns were found for the species-temperature combinations. Further, the high extent of congruency property indicated the dominance of independent cell wall pores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207