Characterization of Fractions Obtained from Two Industrial Softwood Kraft Lignins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing interest in using lignin as an alternative material to petroleum-based chemicals (e.g., in the manufacture of carbon fibers or adhesives), it is becoming important to understand what properties of lignin are required to impart key features in the final product. Commercial lignins are complex, heterogeneous, macromolecular mixtures. To obtain maximum value, lignins will require classification and possibly fractionation or modification to improve properties and enable their utilization in high-value applications. To this end, the physicochemical properties of fractions derived from two industrial softwood Kraft lignins (New Bern Mill, Weyerhaeuser, U.S.A., and Backhammar Mill in Kristinehamn, Sweden) have been determined and compared to previously published data on commercially available Indulin AT lignin from MeadWestvaco.1,2 The fractions were obtained by successive extraction with organic solvents and analyzed using a range of techniques (e.g., DSC, 13 C NMR, 31 P NMR). The results showed that these industrial softwood Kraft lignins varied significantly in both the amounts of the various fractions and in the properties of the analogous fractions. These differences emphasize the issues industry faces in the utilization of industrial lignins for high-value applications where minor inconsistencies between lignin sources could pose major technical challenges.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".