MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1905755099 · doi:10.15376/biores.6.4.4468-4480

Continuous seam explosion of wheat straw by high pressure mechanical refining system to produce sugars for bioconversion

2011· article· en· W1905755099 on OpenAlexafffund
Haixia Fang, James Deng, Xiao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesUniversité Laval
KeywordsBioconversionSteam explosionYield (engineering)Refining (metallurgy)StrawEnzymatic hydrolysisHydrolysisSulfuric acidChemistryPulp and paper industryChromatographyMaterials scienceBiochemistryOrganic chemistryMetallurgyInorganic chemistryFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study demonstrated the use of a pressurized mechanical refining system for the continuous steam explosion pretreatment of wheat straw. Wheat straw was first impregnated with either dilute acid (0.5% sulfuric acid) or water and then steam exploded in an Andritz pressurized refiner. The effect of a range of pretreatment conditions, including refining retention time and steam pressure/temperature on the resulting substrate composition and hydrolysability as well as overall sugars yield was investigated. For autohydrolysis, the optimum conditions, 198 oC/6 min gave an enzymatic hydrolysis yield of 93.3% and an overall glucose yield of 85.8%, while 198 oC/4 min gave an enzymatic hydrolysis yield of 88.7% and overall glucose yield of 88.4%. Longer retention time increased the enzymatic hydrolysability but reduced the overall glucose yield owing to the degradation reaction during pretreatment. For acid pretreatment, the most favourable condition for enzymatic hydrolysis and overall glucose yield coincided at 178 oC /6 min.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.190
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207