MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994626389 · doi:10.1021/ie048877k

The Reinforcement of Calcium Carbonate Filled Papers with Phosphorus-Containing Polymers

2005· article· en· W1994626389 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaonong Chen, Ruixiang Huang, Robert Pelton

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Chemistry and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhosphonateCationic polymerizationChemistryAcrylatePolyelectrolytePolymer chemistryPhosphatePolymerAcrylic acidCalcium carbonateCopolymerCarboxylateAqueous solutionChemical engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anionic polyelectrolytes bearing phosphate or phosphonate groups were compared to poly(acrylic acid- co -acrylamide) as reinforcing polymers for paper filled with calcium carbonate. Cationic polyvinylamine, PVAm, was used to promote adsorption of the anionic polymers onto fiber and filler surfaces in the aqueous papermaking suspension. Both poly(acrylamide- co -vinyl phosphonate), PAMVP, and phosphate esters of poly(vinyl alcohol), PVAP, gave stronger paper than did the acrylate copolymers. PAMVP bound soluble calcium ions, resulting in the formation of multichain colloidal-sized clusters. Subsequent addition of PVAm produced dispersed, cationic polyelectrolyte complexes. The polyacrylates bound less soluble calcium and formed weakly scattering clusters. It is proposed that the phosphate and phosphonate groups promote polymer adhesion to the calcium carbonate surfaces, resulting in stronger paper.

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)0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicEnvironmental Chemistry and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207