MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2492900235 · doi:10.21967/jbb.v1i1.36

Ameliorated enzymatic saccharification of corn stover with a novel modified alkali pretreatment

2016· article· en· W2492900235 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guang Yu, Huanfei Xu, Chao Liu, Paul DeRoussel, Chunyan Zhang, Yuedong Zhang, Bin Li, Haisong Wang, Xindong Mu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioresources and Bioproducts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorn stoverXylanaseCellulaseChemistryHydrolysisEnzymatic hydrolysisXylanBioconversionGlucanReducing sugarFood scienceSugarBiochemistryEnzymeFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enzymatic saccharification/hydrolysis is one of the key steps for the bioconversion of lignocelluloses into sustainable biofuels. In this work, corn stover was pretreated with a novel modified alkali process (NaOH + anthraquinone (AQ) + sodium lignosulfonate (SLS)), and then enzymatically hydrolyzed with an enzyme cocktail (cellulase (Celluclast 1.5L), <i>β</i>-glucosidase (Novozyme 188) and xylanase (from <i>thermomyceslanuginosus</i>)) in the pH range of 4.0-6.5. It was found that the suitable pH for the enzymatic saccharification process to achieve a high glucan yield was between 4.2 and 5.7, while the appropriate pH to obtain a high xylan yield was in the range of 4.0-4.7. The best pH for the enzymatic saccharification process was found to be 4.4 in terms of the final total sugar yield, as xylanase worked most efficiently in the pH range of 4.0-4.7, under the conditions in the study. The addition of xylanase in the enzymatic saccharification process could hydrolyze xylan in the substrates and reduce the nonspecific binding of cellulase, thus improving the total sugar yields.

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 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioresources and BioproductsSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207