MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993429758 · doi:10.1021/bm050288q

Hydrogen Bonding in Lignin:  A Fourier Transform Infrared Model Compound Study

2005· article· en· W1993429758 on OpenAlexaff
Satoshi Kubo, John F. Kadla

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomacromolecules · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen bondLigninFourier transform infrared spectroscopyChemistryMonomerSoftwoodHardwoodInfrared spectroscopyDimerPolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryPolymerMoleculeChemical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogen bonding plays an important role in the thermal and mechanical properties of biopolymers. To investigate hydrogen bond formation in lignin, an abundant natural polymer found in plants, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis of various lignin model compounds was performed. Four monomeric model compounds and one dimeric model compound were studied under various conditions. FTIR analysis revealed aliphatic hydroxyl groups form stronger hydrogen bonds than phenolic hydroxyl groups. Further, the dimeric biphenyl-type structure formed significantly stronger intermolecular hydrogen bonds as compared to the other monomeric model compounds. Results from the model compound studies were used to explain the observed complex hydrogen-bonding system present in both softwood and hardwood technical lignins. Together with chemical analysis, we discuss the difference in hydrogen bonding between hardwood and softwood lignin and the observed differences in the glass transition temperature.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations513
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomacromoleculesSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207