MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091218781 · doi:10.1002/anie.201001273

Nanocelluloses: A New Family of Nature‐Based Materials

2011· review· en· W2091218781 on OpenAlexaff
Dieter Klemm, Friederike Krämer, Sebastian Moritz, Tom Lindström, Mikael Ankerfors, Derek G. Gray, Annie Dorris

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie International Edition · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanocelluloseCelluloseBiomaterialMaterials scienceBacterial celluloseNanocompositeBiofabricationNanocrystalline materialNanotechnologyPolymer sciencePolymerPolymer nanocompositeComposite materialChemistryOrganic chemistryTissue engineeringBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellulose fibrils with widths in the nanometer range are nature-based materials with unique and potentially useful features. Most importantly, these novel nanocelluloses open up the strongly expanding fields of sustainable materials and nanocomposites, as well as medical and life-science devices, to the natural polymer cellulose. The nanodimensions of the structural elements result in a high surface area and hence the powerful interaction of these celluloses with surrounding species, such as water, organic and polymeric compounds, nanoparticles, and living cells. This Review assembles the current knowledge on the isolation of microfibrillated cellulose from wood and its application in nanocomposites; the preparation of nanocrystalline cellulose and its use as a reinforcing agent; and the biofabrication of bacterial nanocellulose, as well as its evaluation as a biomaterial for medical implants.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations4,369
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte Chemie International EditionSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207