MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162998249 · doi:10.1021/ie034203i

Filling Wet Paper with the Use of a Secondary Headbox

2004· article· en· W2162998249 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

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterial Properties and Processing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems
KeywordsFiller (materials)Suspension (topology)Calcium carbonateComposite materialMaterials scienceAggregate (composite)PolyethyleneMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pilot-scale trials on slow and fast Fourdrinier paper machines have shown that a sheet can be filled with clay and calcium carbonate by passing a concentrated filler suspension through a wet sheet. The suspension was supplied from a secondary headbox located at the dryline. The trials showed that no damage to the sheet occurs when the filler suspension is applied to the wet sheet. At low filler concentrations, an uneven distribution of filler in the sheet was observed in the z direction, but at high filler levels, the unevenness in filler distribution decreased. The strength of the paper decreased with increasing filler concentration, as is the case in conventionally filled paper. Aside from fillers, other chemicals can be retained by this process as well. Polyethylene imine (PEI) showed an increase in the dry strength of paper on the slow Fourdrinier machine, but not on the fast one. The main advantage of this method is that the filling process can be completely separated from the wet-end chemistry.

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 score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.151 · 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