Enhancing Wet Cellulose Adhesion with Proteins
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty proteins were compared as potential paper wet strengthening additives by measuring the peel force required to delaminate wet, regenerated cellulose films laminated with a thin (3 mg/m 2 ) protein layer. Wet adhesion results ranged over nearly an order of magnitude, reflecting the importance of protein composition. The proteins with the highest contents of lysine and arginine gave the strongest adhesion with secondary contributions from hydroxyl and phenolic amino acid residues. Wet adhesion was performed with TEMPO oxidized cellulose and with laminates that were cured at high temperatures (120 °C), suggesting that protein grafting to the cellulose and protein cross-linking was important for good wet strength. Although none of the protein laminates was as strong as polyvinylamine or a commercial PAE resin used in the paper industry, this paper suggests that increasing the primary amine (amino group) content as well as optimizing heat-induced bond formation may someday lead to a protein-based paper wet strength resin.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it