MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244171189 · doi:10.1139/x99-241

Liquid water content of wood tissue at temperatures below 0°C

2000· article· en· W4244171189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jed P. Sparks, Gaylon S. Campbell, Robert Black

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobiniaPopulus trichocarpaWater contentBotanyWoody plantLiquid water contentPorosityChemistryEnvironmental scienceHorticultureBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time domain reflectometry (TDR) offers an opportunity to measure the liquid water content of otherwise frozen plant material. We applied TDR technology to the examination of freezing in three types of wood represented by Robinia pseudoacacia L. (ring porous), Populus trichocarpa Torr. & A. Gray (diffuse porous), and Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. and Larix occidentalis Nutt. (conifer wood). Gravimetric analysis revealed similar water contents of all wood types during the summer. In contrast, winter data showed that R. pseudoacacia wood exhibited a lower total (liquid and ice) water content (0.250 m 3 ·m -3 ) than that of Populus trichocarpa (0.600 m 3 ·m -3 ) or of the two conifer species' wood (0.510 m 3 ·m -3 ). Additionally,R. pseudoacacia wood contained more air by volume during the winter than all other wood types (air-filled porosity 0.34 m 3 ·m -3 compared with 0.12-0.22 for all other species). At all temperatures below 0°C, R. pseudoacacia wood contained less liquid water than the other wood types, as revealed by TDR measures. The TDR analysis further demonstrated that more than 25% of the water in wood of all species was liquid even at temperatures of -15°C. This liquid water is likely found within the cell wall and is potentially transportable at temperatures well below 0°C.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207