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 OpenAlexaff
Theo G. M. van de Ven, Alois Vanerek, Gil Garnier

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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

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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicMaterial Properties and ProcessingFrench-language works237,207