MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073040745 · doi:10.1155/2011/573687

Preparation, Modification, and Application of Starch Nanocrystals in Nanomaterials: A Review

2010· review· en· W2073040745 on OpenAlexafffund
Ning Lin, Jin Huang, Peter R. Chang, Debbie P. Anderson, Jiahui Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanomaterials · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNatural Resources CanadaInstitute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of SciencesSouth China University of TechnologyState Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper EngineeringMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNanomaterialsMaterials scienceNanocrystalNanotechnologyStarchPolymerOrganic chemistryChemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past decade, much work has been devoted to the preparation of nanomaterials by blending starch nanocrystals from different sources with various polymer matrices. The following paper summarizes the most up-to-date information available relating to starch nanocrystals and their contribution to research, application, and advancement of diversified nanomaterials. This paper provides an overview of aspects related to starch nanocrystals, including methods for extraction and preparation, chemical modification (with particular emphasis on the modification methods and strategies), reinforcing effects and mechanisms, and applications and prospects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations162
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NanomaterialsSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207