MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129296652 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20246

Electrochemical bleaching of kraft bagasse pulp using a new cell design

2010· article· en· W2129296652 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
El‐Sayed Z. El‐Ashtoukhy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulp (tooth)ElectrolyteBagasseKraft processElectrochemistryKraft paperCurrent densityChemistryAnodeCathodeKappa numberArrhenius equationActivation energyMaterials scienceComposite materialAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Pulp and paper industryElectrodeChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In situ single‐stage electrochemical bleaching of kraft bagasse pulp was carried out in a cylindrical agitated vessel fitted with four graphite rod anodes and a cylindrical stainless steel screen cathode, using NaCl as an electrolyte. The effect of current density, pH, NaCl concentration, impeller rotational speed, temperature, and pulp consistency on the rate of bleaching was studied. It was found that the rate of bleaching increased with increasing current density, NaCl concentration, and temperature and decreased with increasing pH and pulp consistency. The effect of temperature was found to fit Arrhenius equation with an activation energy of 0.515 kcal/mol, which denotes a diffusion‐controlled mechanism. Energy consumption (EC) calculation showed that EC ranged from 0.225 to 3.11 kWh/kg dry pulp depending on the current density. The strength of bleached pulp was little affected by bleaching lying within an acceptable range.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207