MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064179959 · doi:10.1080/02773813.2013.773354

Electrospinning with Condensed Tannins: Effects on Co-spinning with Zein

2013· article· en· W2064179959 on OpenAlexaff
James Ian Dallmeyer, Warren J. Grigsby, John F. Kadla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wood Chemistry and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrospinningTanninNanofiberChemistrySpinningChemical engineeringThermal stabilityFiberPolymerOrganic chemistryPolymer chemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Electrospinning can be applied to renewables creating new materials and applications. We have utilized electrospinning in an attempt to create nanofibers from condensed tannins as well as from binary conjugates formed between this tannin with zein protein. While attempts to directly electrospin pine bark tannin extract proved unsuccessful, combining zein with this tannin gave electrospun fiber from acetic acid and dimethyl formamide (DMF) solutions. To achieve nanofibers possessing significant tannin content, high solids content (≥35%) in DMF solution was required. Electrospun nanofibers (200–400 nm dia.) could be created from zein-tannin combinations with up to 80% tannin content and appropriate solution solids content. Nanofibers could be produced from pre-formed tannin-zein conjugates or via their direct combination as a mixture in the spinning solution. Analysis of thermal stability shows the zein-tannin conjugates have similar thermal properties and stability to zein, being stable up to 240°C. Keywords: Electrospinningcondensed tanninszein proteinprotein conjugates Acknowledgments The authors are grateful and would like to thank the New Zealand Royal Society for funding and travel assistance, which was provided through the RSNZ International Mobility Fund.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wood Chemistry and TechnologySame topicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207