MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963576314 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2015.0665

Multiscale model of a freeze–thaw process for tree sap exudation

2015· article· en· W2963576314 on OpenAlexaff
Isabell Graf, Maurizio Ceseri, John M. Stockie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFreezing and Crystallization Processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Tree (set theory)Computer scienceBiological systemBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental scienceBiologyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sap transport in trees has long fascinated scientists, and a vast literature exists on experimental and modelling studies of trees during the growing season when large negative stem pressures are generated by transpiration from leaves. Much less attention has been paid to winter months when trees are largely dormant but nonetheless continue to exhibit interesting flow behaviour. A prime example is sap exudation, which refers to the peculiar ability of sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and related species to generate positive stem pressure while in a leafless state. Experiments demonstrate that ambient temperatures must oscillate about the freezing point before significantly heightened stem pressures are observed, but the precise causes of exudation remain unresolved. The prevailing hypothesis attributes exudation to a physical process combining freeze-thaw and osmosis, which has some support from experimental studies but remains a subject of active debate. We address this knowledge gap by developing the first mathematical model for exudation, while also introducing several essential modifications to this hypothesis. We derive a multiscale model consisting of a nonlinear system of differential equations governing phase change and transport within wood cells, coupled to a suitably homogenized equation for temperature on the macroscale. Numerical simulations yield stem pressures that are consistent with experiments and provide convincing evidence that a purely physical mechanism is capable of capturing exudation.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicFreezing and Crystallization ProcessesFrench-language works237,207