Treatment of Fractionated Fibers with Various Cationic-Modified Poly(vinyl alcohols) and Its Impact on Paper Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, the effects of various high molecular weight cationic poly(vinyl alcohols), CPVAs, on the fiber morphology and the properties of papers made from fractionated refined fibers were investigated. At first, bleached sulfite fibers were refined under various revolutions and then refined fibers were fractionated under various time intervals to obtain refined fibers with a similar fiber length and fines content. Then, 20 mg/g CPVAs with various charge densities was adsorbed on the fractionated refined fibers prior to making hand sheets. The results showed that the lower the charge density of CPVA, the higher the effectiveness of CPVA in improving the paper strength at any refining revolution. The reasons for such a phenomenon were perhaps the different configurations of CPVAs on the surface of the fibers and the different adhesion/repulsion forces developed between CPVA-modified fibers in hand sheets. Also, by reducing the freeness of the fractionated fibers (increasing the refining revolutions), the effect of CPVA in improving the paper strength was reduced. In this case, the CPVAs tended to cover the fibrils on the fiber surface, which was demonstrated by SEM observations, thus reducing the contact area of the fractionated refined fibers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".