MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950079241 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erz288

Mechanics of a plant in fluid flow

2019· review· en· W2950079241 on OpenAlexafffund
Frédérick P. Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFluid mechanicsMechanicsFluid dynamicsSolid mechanicsPhysicsClassical mechanicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants live in constantly moving fluid, whether air or water. In response to the loads associated with fluid motion, plants bend and twist, often with great amplitude. These large deformations are not found in traditional engineering application and thus necessitate new specialized scientific developments. Studying fluid-structure interaction (FSI) in botany, forestry, and agricultural science is crucial to the optimization of biomass production for food, energy, and construction materials. FSIs are also central in the study of the ecological adaptation of plants to their environment. This review paper surveys the mechanics of FSI on individual plants. I present a short refresher on fluid mechanics then dive into the statics and dynamics of plant-fluid interactions. For every phenomenon considered, I examine the appropriate dimensionless numbers to characterize the problem, discuss the implications of these phenomena on biological processes, and propose future research avenues. I cover the concept of reconfiguration while considering poroelasticity, torsion, chirality, buoyancy, and skin friction. I also assess the dynamical phenomena of wave action, flutter, and vortex-induced vibrations.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations87
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207