MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501429914 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v4n3p49

Oxygen Consumption of Laccase-Mediator-Systems (LMS)

2015· article· en· W1501429914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexander H. Kirsch, Markus Euring, Kolja Ostendorf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEnzyme-mediated dye degradation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsLaccaseVanillic acidCaffeic acidMaterials sciencePulp and paper industryLigninPetrochemicalOrganic chemistryChemical engineeringChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crude oil as a non-renewable resource is presenting challenges for the future in many industrial sectors. Due to the dwindling of these resources, costs are increasing negatively affecting the wood based panels industry, which uses mainly petrochemical resins as components for binding agents. In addition harmful formaldehyde emissions arising from conventionally produced wood composites are demonstrable. In order to substitute these conventional binding agents for wood based panels, in particular medium density fiberboards (MDF), Laccase-Mediator-Systems (LMSs) were investigated in several researches. A popular and reliable method used to test the suitability of LMSs is the measurement of their oxygen consumption on wood fibers in aqueous suspension. This enzymatic catalyzed oxidation was the object of this study. The mediators 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (HBA), vanillic acid (VanA), vanillic alcohol (VAl), ethylvanillin (EVan), acetovanillone (AVan), ferulic acid (FA), caffeic acid (CA) and guajacol (Gu) were tested as possible components of the LMSs. The study showed that all of the LMSs have oxidized wood fibers more efficiently than laccase on its own. Among the different mediators, vanillic alcohol, guajacol and caffeic acid in LMSs have shown the fastest O2 consumption.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.380
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 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicEnzyme-mediated dye degradationFrench-language works237,207