MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297084988

A Study of Loblolly Pine Growth Increments—Part III Refining Characteristics of Tracheids from Kraft Pulps

2007· article· en· W2297084988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geza Ifju, Peter Labosky, Frank D. Mitsianis

Bibliographic record

VenueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracheidKraft paperPulp (tooth)Loblolly pineKraft processPulp and paper industrySoftwoodChemistryComposite materialMaterials sciencePinus <genus>BotanyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth increments of loblolly pine were divided into five growth zones and kraft-pulped according to four different digestion schedules of 1 1/2, 1 3/4, 2, and 3 hours. Each of the 20 pulps was subjected to four periods of beating and Canadian Standard Freeness (CSF) was determined for each. It was found that all pulps independent of the extent of digestion or origin of wood from the growth ring had about the same CSF after short periods of beating. After 35 minutes in the beater, latewood pulp freeness was drastically reduced whereas earlywood pulps changed very little. In general, significantly less energy, as indicated by shorter beating times, was needed for latewood pulps to achieve a specific CSF level than for earlywood pulp. Pulps of low yield were easier to refine than those of high yield. Scanning electron microscopic observations revealed that all pulps underwent a tracheid cell-wall peeling sequence. The layer removed from latewood tracheids by beating separated into long fibrillar bundles while earlywood lamellae freed from tracheids remained intact. The influence of this external fibrillation was attributed to differences between the pulps in refining.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology)Same topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207