MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389540766 · doi:10.17118/11143/21160

Morphogenesis through mechanical instabilities : wrinkles and rufflesformation during the growth of kelp blades

2023· article· en· W4389540766 on OpenAlexaff
Josua Garon, Anne-Lise Routier, David Mélançon, Frédérick P. Gosselin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAquatic and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphogenesisKelpBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brown macroalgae, also known as kelp, consist of a holdfast that anchors them to the sea floor, a stipe that rises to the water surface, and leaf-like structures known as blades whose primary function is photosynthesis.A close inspection of the blades' surface reveals complex and diverse geometrical features, from tiny wrinkles to large ruffles.It has been demonstrated that the edges of kelp blades grow faster than their midline, inducing a global plate instability known as ruffling.However, morphogenesis of the kelp blade could also be linked to the differential growth across the thickness of the blade.Indeed, the outer layers (i.e, the meristoderm) grow through cell proliferation while pulling on a passive inner core (i.e., the medulla and cortex).This incompatibility in growth eventually leads to a surface instability called wrinkling which has mostly been characterized for bi-layers systems.Here, we model the kelp blades as a tri-layer to study the influence of wrinkling instabilities on its morphogenesis.Using a combination of reduced-order models and finite element simulations, we characterize the influence of material and geometrical parameters (e.g., layers' modulus, thickness, boundary conditions) on the wrinkling onset and the complex, post-instability deformation of the system.Our results shed light onto the role of wrinkling in the morphogenesis of kelp blade and could be extended to induce wrinkles and ruffles in artificial systems.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.169 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAquatic and Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207