Evolution of wood cell wall nanopore size distribution in the hygroscopic range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Owing to technical difficulties, experimental assessment of wood cell wall pore size distribution (PSD) in the hygroscopic range still remains challenging. Here, a “trial-and-error” approach was proposed to calculate such distribution through bridging experimental and simulated sorption isotherms presented by the authors in the past. Two main assumptions were made in the calculations, namely, the generation of new and the swelling of existing cell wall pores during water sorption. The nanopore size distribution of dried cell wall derived from the experimental CO 2 gas sorption isotherms was used as the initial boundary condition. Predicted pore size distributions were assessed to be fairly reasonable by comparing them at 95% relative humidity with the PSD of fully saturated cell walls derived from the solute exclusion method. The predicted distribution was relatively wide with several major peaks evolving in the hygroscopic range. The present work also showed that confounded by a wide PSD that includes mostly micropores, the shape of the experimental sorption isotherms was not reliable in assessing the sorption mechanism. The simulations suggested an alternative water sorption mechanism for wood, i.e. micropore filling of cell wall nanopores.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".