MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347974277

Effect of Deinking Process on Wastepaper Fiber Properties

2012· article· en· W2347974277 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

VenueTransactions of China Pulp and Paper · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterial Properties and Processing
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeinkingFiberPulp and paper industryMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeWaste paperChemical engineeringComposite materialChemistryWaste managementEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two kinds of deinking processes,neutral deinking process and alkaline deinking process,were used for old newspaper(ONP) deinking.Olympus inverted biological microscope was used to analyze fiber and ink particles dispersing behaviors in the deinking system.Waste-paper fiber structures before and after deinking were characterized by FTIR.Scanning electron microscopy(SEM) was used to analyze fiber surface change after alkaline and neutral deinking.The results showed that the effect of different deinking process on the fiber morphology and structure is obvious.After deinking,the average fiber length and kink index decrease and fines increase.Influence of alkaline deinking on the fiber morphology is more significant than that of neutral deinking.Compared to alkaline deinking,the fiber morphology and structure after neutral deinking have few change,there is less hydroxyl group on the fiber surface and the neutral deinked fiber surface has less fibril and less damage.

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 score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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