MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024949152 · doi:10.3390/fib1030059

Comparative Evaluation of Physical and Structural Properties of Water Retted and Non-retted Flax Fibers

2013· article· en· W2024949152 on OpenAlexafffund
Gopu Nair, Ashutosh Singh, Małgorzata Zimniewska, Vijaya Raghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueFibers · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRettingFinenessMaterials scienceComposite materialLinear densityTenacity (mineralogy)Scanning electron microscopeElongationHomogeneity (statistics)FiberUltimate tensile strengthMathematicsPulp and paper industryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flax stems of Modran variety were subjected to water retting under laboratory conditions and its physical properties were compared with non-retted fibers. Physical properties including percentage of impurities, weighted average length, linear density, tenacity and elongation were analyzed and the results were compared. The analysis of retted and non-retted flax fibers showed that retting is the most important step in the processing of flax fibers and it directly affects quality attributes like strength, fineness, and homogeneity. Scanning Electron microscope images of fibers were also analyzed and the retted fibers showed much cleaner surface when compared to decorticated non-retted 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 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 score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFibersSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207