MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118994676 · doi:10.1002/bit.20905

Bioconversion of hybrid poplar to ethanol and co‐products using an organosolv fractionation process: Optimization of process yields

2006· article· en· W2118994676 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

VenueBiotechnology and Bioengineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganosolvChemistryCelluloseFractionationBioconversionLigninXyloseCellulaseEnzymatic hydrolysisChromatographyHydrolysisFraction (chemistry)Ethanol precipitationEthanolCentral composite designResponse surface methodologyExtraction (chemistry)Organic chemistryFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An organosolv process involving extraction with hot aqueous ethanol has been evaluated for bioconversion of hybrid poplar to ethanol. The process resulted in fractionation of poplar chips into a cellulose-rich solids fraction, an ethanol organosolv lignin (EOL) fraction, and a water-soluble fraction containing hemicellulosic sugars, sugar breakdown products, degraded lignin, and other components. The influence of four independent process variables (temperature, time, catalyst dose, and ethanol concentration) on product yields was analyzed over a broad range using a small composite design and response surface methodology. Center point conditions for the composite design (180 degrees C, 60 min, 1.25% H(2)SO(4), and 60% ethanol), yielded a solids fraction containing approximately 88% of the cellulose present in the untreated poplar. Approximately 82% of the total cellulose in the untreated poplar was recovered as monomeric glucose after hydrolysis of the solids fraction for 24 h using a low enzyme loading (20 filter paper units of cellulase/g cellulose); approximately 85% was recovered after 48 h hydrolysis. Total recovery of xylose (soluble and insoluble) was equivalent to approximately 72% of the xylose present in untreated wood. Approximately 74% of the lignin in untreated wood was recovered as EOL. Other cooking conditions resulted in either similar or inferior product yields although the distribution of components between the various fractions differed markedly. Data analysis generated regression models that describe process responses for any combination of the four variables.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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