A Report on 2011 TAPPI International Conference on Nanotechnology for Renewable Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2011 TAPPI International Conference On Nanotechnology for Renewable Materials が6月6日～8日の日程でアメリカ，バージニア州アーリントンのSheraton Crystal Cityにて開催された。セルロースナノファイバーのキャラクタライゼーション，表面改質，材料の複合化などをテーマとした研究発表に加えて，安全性評価やナノセルロース材料に関する標準化，規格化に関する発表，新規プラントに関する紹介が目立ち，実用化，事業化に向けて着々と準備が進んでいるのを目の当たりにした。主催者であるTAPPIによると，3日間の出席者総数は約190名，17カ国から参加があった。31のセッション，76件の口頭発表，17件のポスターセッション，またキーノートプレゼンテーションが6件，行われた。ここではその一部を紹介する。1）セルロースナノファイバー製造設備の新設情報・The U. S. Forest Products Industry and the Nanotechnology Revolution（Session 1）・CelluForce The Domtar―FP Innovations Joint venture nanocellulose crystalline Our business model（Session 18，発表番号4）・NanoCellulose Upscaling Reserch at Innventia（Session 31，発表番号31―2）2）研究発表・A new type of Filler-Nanocellulose Composite Substance for Printed Electronics Applications（J. Sievanen, VTT, Finland）（Session 4，発表番号4―2）・Barrior property of Naofibrilled Cellulose／Clay Films for Applications in Packaging Materials（Thao Thi Thu Ho, EMPA, Swiss）（Session 4，発表番号4―3）他4発表3）セルロースナノファイバーに関する安全性評価・Ensuring the Safety of Manufactured Nanocrystalline Cellulose：A Risk Assessment under Canada’s New Substances Notification Regulations（Session 2 発表番号2―3）4）セルロースナノファイバーの規格化に関して・International co-operation for the standardiation of nano-scale cellulose materials（Session 28，発表番号28―1）他1発表
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.141 | 0.049 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".