The middle lamella remainders on the surface of various mechanical pulp fibres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The surfaces of various mechanical pulp fibres, including thermomechanical pulp (TMP), chemithermomechanical pulp (CTMP), and alkaline peroxide mechanical pulp (APMP) fibres, were characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). With SEM and AFM, the middle lamella material was observed to be non‐fibrillar and patch‐like, while the fibre secondary wall was observed to have a micro‐fibrillar structure. It was found that after the first‐stage refiner, lignin‐rich middle lamella remainders were present on the fibre surface of all three pulps, although most of the fibre surfaces exhibited a micro‐fibrillar structure. After the final‐stage refining, large amounts of granules were present on the TMP fibre surface. In contrast, most middle lamella remainders were still visible on the surface of CTMP fibres after the final‐stage refining and even after peroxide bleaching. XPS results have confirmed that the non‐fibrillar surface material is the lignin‐rich middle lamella remainder that contribute to the high surface lignin concentration. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".