PULP AND FIBER CHARACTERIZATION OF WHEAT STRAW AND EUCALUPTUS PULPS - A COMPARISON
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response to refining of wheat straw and eucalyptus pulps as well as the relationships between refining, fiber properties, and paper properties are described in this paper. Pulps were bleached applying different bleaching sequences and thereafter refined to varying degrees. Pulp and fiber properties were investigated and set into relation to the final sheet properties. The results show that wheat straw pulps respond to refining more easily than eucalyptus pulps and that the differences are due mainly to morphological and ultrastructural differences as well as fines content and xylan content. The development of strength properties of the different pulps was found to be strongly correlated to the number of dislocations, i.e. weak points in the fiber wall, as well as to the morphological appearance of the pulp fibers after refining. A higher initial number and a faster development of dislocations together with the creation of large amounts of fines explain the slower and lower development of strength properties of wheat straw pulps than of eucalyptus pulps. Removal of fines from wheat straw pulps improved not only the drainability of the pulp suspension but also the mechanical and optical sheet properties. This indicates that the fines in the wheat straw pulps act mainly as filler with low bonding properties. The fact that fractionated D(EOP)D wheat straw pulps can deliver good mechanical sheet properties at very good drainability with no or only minor refining is very interesting when evaluating the potential of replacing or partially replacing eucalyptus with domestic Chinese raw materials in furnishes for production of different paper products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".