MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068022358 · doi:10.3329/bjsir.v48i2.15740

Pulping of different parts of whole green jute (C. Capsularies) plant by Kraft process

2013· article· en· W2068022358 on OpenAlex
Md Rabiul Alam

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPolysaccharides Composition and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Columbia Innovation Council
KeywordsPulp (tooth)Kraft processPulp and paper industryCelluloseBambooKraft paperLigninPectinKappa numberChemistryRaw materialMaterials scienceComposite materialFood scienceEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chemical composition of the top, middle and bottom part of green jute plant (GJP) are not alike, thus the yield and strength properties of the pulp produced may vary if these are pulped separately. The alpha -cellulose content increases, whereas hemi-cellulose, lignin, ash and extractives decrease from top to bottom part of GJP. The Kraft pulp yield and strength properties increases (except tear) from top to bottom part of GJP. The pulp produced from GJP was found to undergo rapid beating in comparison to those of muli bamboo, jute cuttings. This indicates less energy requirement during refining operation of the GJP pulp. Low extractive (pectin) and high alpha-cellulose is favorable for pulping. Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res. 48(2), 105-108, 2013 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjsir.v48i2.15740

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.198 · 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