MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074485152 · doi:10.1021/jf0714564

Fractionation of Flax Shives by Water and Aqueous Ammonia Treatment in a Pressurized Low-Polarity Water Extractor

2007· article· en· W2074485152 on OpenAlexaff
Anvar U. Buranov, Giuseppe Mazza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLigninHemicelluloseCelluloseExtraction (chemistry)Aqueous solutionAmmoniaFractionationChromatographyHot water extractionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fractionation of flax shives into cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin with a two-stage extraction process using water and aqueous ammonia was carried out in a pressurized low-polarity water extractor operated at different temperatures, flow rates, and ammonia concentrations. During the first stage with water, 84% of hemicellulose and 32% of lignin were removed at 190 degrees C at a flow rate of 1.5 mL/min for 30 min. During the second stage with aqueous ammonia, more than 77% of the lignin was removed, and hemicellulose removal reached 95% at 200 degrees C at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min and with a solvent/feed ratio of 40 mL/g. The temperature and flow rate had a significant effect on lignin removal. The impact of additives (anthraquinone and hydrogen peroxide) and modifications (overnight soaking, reduced particle size, and elevated temperature) on lignin extraction was also studied. The combination of higher temperatures and reduced particle sizes resulted in enhanced lignin extraction. The extraction profiles of free phenolics (vanillin, acetovanillone, and vanillic acid) during the two-stage processing were monitored and compared with those of lignin.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207