Recycled Old Corrugated Container Fibers for Wood-Fiber Cement Sheets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recycled pulp of old corrugated containers (OCCs) was studied as a possible fiber source for wood-fiber cement (WFC) sheets. This industry currently largely relies on kraft pulp, an expensive fiber source. Thus, WFC sheets were made using less costly OCC fibers utilizing various types of treatments including fiber fractionation (FF) and refining to 500 and 400 Canadian Standard Freeness (CSF) to determine the effect of these treatments on the sheets strength. Unprocessed virgin kraft fiber of radiata pine (Pinus radiata) was used as control for comparison purposes. The unprocessed OCC pulp furnish yielded an initial freeness of 635 CSF; after fractionating, however, it was increased to 754 CSF. OCC pulp presented a kappa number of 47, compared to 23.7 forP. radiata. Fractionating OCC pulp was effective in raising the range of long fibers in the stock from 68 percent to 85 percent, before and after fractionating, respectively. Results from WFC sheets made in laboratory showed that there was no significant difference in board strength among boards made with unprocessed OCC fibers, fractionated and refined OCC, andP. radiatafibers. However, sheet strength decreased when refined OCC fibers were used. The results suggest that OCC fibers can produce WFC sheets with desirable characteristics compared to those of unrefined virgin kraft fiber ofP. radiata.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".