Critical comparison of methods for surface coverage by extractives and lignin in pulps by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Different methods for estimation of the surface coverage by extractives and lignin were critically compared. For data collection, four state-of-the-art X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) instruments located in four different laboratories were used. Hand sheets of one mechanical and two chemical pulp samples were prepared in one laboratory and distributed among the other participants. The XPS results based on O/C ratios and curve fitting of the C 1s peak had very good intra- and interlaboratory variation for extracted and non-extracted pulp samples. The estimations of surface coverage by extractives and lignin also had acceptable intra- and interlaboratory variation. However, significant differences were observed between the results for the various methods. Estimation of surface coverage by extractives based on O/C ratios was much higher than that based on the C1 component analysis in the case of mechanical and unbleached chemical pulp. The surface coverage by lignin of mechanical pulp was reproducibly detected based on O/C ratios, C1 component analysis and by labelling with mercury acetate. The same data were, however, rather scattered if they were collected with these three methods for bleached and unbleached chemical pulp. In spite of the differences, similar trends regarding the pulp type could be observed. We interpret the results as indicating that the surface coverage for both extractives and lignin should not be considered as absolute “true” values, but rather as relative values, which are reliable only for comparison of samples for the same instrument. Even for relative comparisons, we recommend the selection of a strict experimental set-up for spectral acquisition and data treatment when applying any of the instruments and calculation models currently available.
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 | 0.026 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".