MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620943990 · doi:10.1515/hf-2016-0231

Water sorption hysteresis in wood: III physical modeling by molecular simulation

2017· article· en· W2620943990 on OpenAlexaff
Jingbo Shi, Stavros Avramidis

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHysteresisSorptionCapillary condensationNanoporousMaterials scienceMetastabilityMolecular dynamicsNanoporeChemical physicsCapillary actionThermodynamicsWork (physics)Chemical engineeringChemistryComposite materialAdsorptionNanotechnologyPhysical chemistryComputational chemistryOrganic chemistryPhysicsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Molecular simulation has been successfully applied to sorption and hysteresis studies of various nanoporous materials, revealing underlying mechanisms that neither theoretical nor experimental approaches can achieve. In this work, the grand canonical Monte Carlo approach is used in a simplified wood-water system to simulate sorption isotherms and hysteresis at 25°C and 40°C. Wood is represented by a cell wall model composed of a solid substance and evenly distributed independent cylindrical nanopores with diameters in the range of 0.6–2.2 nm. Polysaccharides and lignin pore-wall compositions are considered. Hydroxyl groups are modeled as negative energy pits attached to walls and water is represented by the extended simple point charge model. Capillary condensation in the wide hygroscopic range and metastable states are well demonstrated in the simulations, thus supporting the independent domain model discussed in the first paper of this series. The size of simulated hysteresis loops increases with pore size, less hydrophilic lignin composition and reduced temperature. The trends shown by the model are consistent with experimental findings. The larger hysteresis can be explained by more metastable states due to weaker wall-water interaction or smaller thermal fluctuation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207