MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111812124 · doi:10.1080/02773810903370404

Analysis and Fate of Lipophilic Extractives in Sulphite Pulps

2010· article· en· W2111812124 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wood Chemistry and Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPulp (tooth)ChromatographyPolymerizationDissolving pulpDissolutionSolventAmmoniumPulp and paper industrySolvent extractionExtraction (chemistry)Organic chemistryCellulosePolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the major requirements of sulphite pulps, particularly those used in the manufacture of dissolving grades, is that their extractives content must not exceed certain levels, as specified by the customer. Since these levels are generally very low, the accuracy and reproducibility of extractives measurements can be poor, which in turn can lead to disagreements between pulp suppliers and their customers. In an effort to improve the reliability of extractives measurements, we have evaluated several methods for the determination of lipophilic extractives in sulphite pulps, using Soxhlet and Soxtec solvent extraction and various modes of drying the extracts including hot plate, infrared lamp, and freeze drying. Analysis of the extracts by size exclusion chromatography showed that a significant portion of the extracts was polymerized during the production process. Lipophilic extractives from ammonium sulphite pulps contain more polymerized matter than the extractives from the magnesium process.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.215 · 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