MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993236150 · doi:10.1515/hf.2008.085

Effects of refining steam pressure on the properties of loblolly pine (<i>Pinus taeda</i> L.) fibers

2008· article· en· W1993236150 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Trairat Neimsuwan, Siqun Wang, X. Philip Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of ManitobaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSorptionSuperheated steamSteam explosionLoblolly pineCrystallinityMaterials scienceFiberComposite materialRelative humidityChemistryPulp and paper industryPinus <genus>Waste managementBotanyOrganic chemistryThermodynamicsBoiler (water heating)Adsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Medium density fiberboard is widely used with increasing tendency in North America, particularly in the furniture sector, including door skin and cabinets. Sorption property is one of the most important factors for quality judgment. This study will present water vapor sorption behavior of fibers in the range of varying relative humidity from 11% to 89% as affected by steam pressure of thermomechanical refining in small-scale measurement. A 54-year-old loblolly pine tree was refined at 2 to 18 bar of steam pressure. Fiber properties were determined by scanning electron microscope, dynamic contact angle analyzer, wide angle X-ray diffractometer, and water activity meter. The results showed that steam pressure has a dramatic effect on sorption behavior and surface properties of the refined fiber. In conclusion, a higher rate of sorption was found in juvenile fiber at low steam pressure. Higher water activity and lower crystallinity was found at low steam pressure. The sorption isotherm of refined fiber was fitted very well by the Hailwood-Horrobin model.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207