A new and simple way of preparing polycation‐grafted fibrous cellulose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new way of producing polycation‐grafted fibrous cellulose for its use as a retention aid in the papermaking process was conceived. It consists of adding, under intense stirring, to a cellulose fibers suspension at a basic pH a cationic polyacrylamide dissolved in water. As the cellulose fiber's surface is negatively charged because of its more or less acid groups, the cationic polymer adsorbs on it. The cationic‐grafted cellulose fibers are very similar to the cellulose fibers used in papermaking, since the polymer is (on a micrometer scale) homogeneously grafted on them as a film. It could so be used to increase the retention of the negatively charged fillers, fibers, and pigments during the process, without altering the properties of the resulting sheet of paper. The amount of polymeric grafts depends on the quantity of anionic groups on fiber's surface and varies monotonically with the grafting temperature and polyacrylamide's concentration in the blend. The grafted fibrous cellulose is well stable, even in drastic media and for lower Mw grafts, and the amount of grafted polymer also depends on the concentration and characteristics of fiber's suspension. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 102: 3149–3157, 2006
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".