Evaluations of cellulose accessibilities of lignocelluloses by solute exclusion and protein adsorption techniques
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellulose accessibilities of a set of hornified lignocellulosic substrates derived by drying the never dried pretreated sample and a set of differently pretreated lodgepople pine substrates, were evaluated using solute exclusion and protein adsorption methods. Direct measurements of cellulase adsorption onto cellulose surface of the set of pretreated substrates were also carried out using an in situ UV-Vis spectrophotometric technique. The cellulose accessibilities measured by the solute exclusion and a cellulose-binding module (CBM)-containing green fluorescent protein (TGC) adsorption methods correlate well for both sets of samples. The substrate enzymatic digestibilities (SEDs) of the hornified substrates are proportional to the measured cellulose accessibilities. Approximately over 90% of the SED was contributed by the accessible pore surfaces of the hornified substrates, suggesting that the substrate external surface plays a minor role contributing to cellulose accessibility and SED. The cellulose accessibilities of the pretreated substrates correlated well with the amounts of cellulase adsorbed. The SEDs of these substrates directly correlated with the amounts of adsorbed cellulase.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it