Comparative Pulping Properties of Eucalyptus urograndis × E.grandis and Acacia mangium Willd.Woods Using P-RC APMP Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulping properties of Eucalyptus urograndis×E.grandis(E.u.×E.g.) and Acacia mangium Willd.wood chips were investigated by using preconditioning refinerchemical alkaline peroxide mechanical pulping(P-RC APMP) process.Specific refining energies were recorded and both physical properties and optical properties of pulps were evaluated.Results show that similar brightness of P-RC APMP pulps could be produced from both E.u.× E.g.and A.mangium wood chips.At the chemical dosage level of H2O2 4.0 % and NaOH 3.5 %,which is a very low chemical consumption,pulp brightness of both pulps was able to reach 75 % ISO.The pulp yield of A.mangium wood chips was 3.0 % higher than that of E.u.× E.g.wood chip.At the freeness level of 250 mL Canadian Standard Freeness(CSF),pulps from A.mangium wood chips was much stronger than that from E.u.× E.g..For example,the tensile strength of P-RC APMP pulp from A.mangium was above 26 N·m/g,about 30 % higher than that of E.u.× E.g.pulp;Further refining could improve chemimechanical pulp strength.For the same CSF level,pulping of A.mangium wood chips requires more refining energy than that of E.u.× E.g.wood chips.
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) | 0.001 | 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".