MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120061415 · doi:10.1002/app.42336

Characterization of four different lignins as a first step toward the identification of suitable end‐use applications

2015· article· en· W2120061415 on OpenAlexafffund
Farshad Oveissi, Pedram Fatehi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLigninLignosulfonatesKraft paperSulfiteKraft processChemistryOrganosolvMaterials scienceChemical engineeringNuclear chemistryPulp and paper industryOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT To determine the most appropriate use of lignin, surface, structural, and thermal characteristics of lignin was investigated in this work. It was observed that kraft lignin (KL), the lignin of prehydrolysis liquor (LPHL), lignosulfonate of NSSC process (LSL), and lignosulfonates (LSs) of sulfite pulping process had 0.67, 0.25, 0.90, and 1.52–2.25 meq/g anionic charge density, and 6.3, 2.1, 10.1, and 8.8–10.1 nm hydrodynamic diameter, respectively. These results suggested that LSL and LSs could be used more effectively than other lignin as filler modifiers, flocculants, and dispersants. The combustion studies of the lignin samples suggested that KL and LPHL combusted more efficiently than other samples, as they had high heating (calorific) values of 27.02 and 19.2 MJ/kg, the apparent activation energy of 126.64 and 99.14 kJ/mol based on Flynn–Wall–Ozawa method and 122.16 and 94.73 kJ/mol based on Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose and no ash, respectively. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2015 , 132 , 42336.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207