MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584418237 · doi:10.22079/jmsr.2016.22839

A Review of Membrane Technology for Integrated Forest Biorefinery

2017· review· en· W2584418237 on OpenAlexaff
Baoqiang Liao, Alnour Bokhary, Cui Li, Hongjun Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of membrane science and research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiorefineryBiofuelBioenergyBiochemical engineeringBusinessEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More recently, the concept of integrated forest biorefinery (IFBR) has received much attention as a promising solution for the struggling forest industry in North America and Europe to overcome its difficult financial period and competes globally. This new business paradigm offers a broad range of potentially attractive products, from bioenergy to value-added green organic chemicals in addition to traditional pulp and paper products. However, it also implies adoption of different types of appropriate separation technologies. Recent advancements in membrane technologies and their valuable applications have resulted in numerous breakthroughs in IFBR. The review of the implementation of membrane technologies for the separation of the value-added chemicals in the integrated forest biorefinery could contribute to the knowledge required for the large-scale adoption of membrane technologies in the forest industry. This paper aims to present a state-of-the-art review on the applications and the recent advancements of membrane technologies in IFBR, and their capacities to produce value-added chemicals and bioenergy. The emphasis is given to the focus areas of IFBR, particularly: the recovery of value-added chemicals, black liquor concentration, product recovery from Kraft evaporator condensates, tall oil recovery, inorganic and inorganic compounds recovery, fermentation inhibitors removal, enzyme recovery, biobutanol and bioethanol production and recovery. The paper also discusses the challenges and opportunities of this new business paradigm of forest industries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of membrane science and researchSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207