MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320381114 · doi:10.2524/jtappij.55.1110

Progressive System Closure: A Canadian Perspective

2001· article· en· W2320381114 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Paleologou

Bibliographic record

VenueJAPAN TAPPI JOURNAL · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosure (psychology)EffluentEngineeringMillControl (management)Pulp (tooth)Operations managementWaste managementPaper millCost reductionEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental scienceBusinessComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paper buying standards, environmental regulations, and economic factors are continuing the interest in progressing toward low effluent, closed-cycle pulp and paper mills. Customer satisfaction, reduced resource utilization, freedom to site mills in areas without a ready source of water and protection from future costs to meet tightening effluent regulations are some of the specific advantages associated with closed-cycle operation. Progressive system closure is gaining support in Canada as a way to achieve further effluent reduction, and to minimize the costs of environmental protection.This paper will provide a brief review of past and present mill efforts to apply system closure in Canadian pulp and paper mills. It will then describe some highlights from Paprican's program in progressive system closure which incorporates research and development activities in the areas of: water use reduction, improved prediction and design tools, dynamics and control, corrosion control, chemical separation and regeneration, removal and/or control of wood extractives, chemical additives, energy cost reduction and control of solid and gaseous emissions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAPAN TAPPI JOURNALSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207