MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728568677 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22932

Effect of bed material, lignin content, and origin on the processability of biomass in fast pyrolysis reactors

2017· article· en· W2728568677 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Valentina Lago, Cédric Briens, Franco Berruti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBioFuelNet Canada
KeywordsLigninPyrolysisKraft processPulp and paper industryRaw materialKraft paperBiomass (ecology)CelluloseMaterials scienceChemical engineeringBiofuelAgglomeratePulp (tooth)VapoursOrganic chemistryChemistryWaste managementComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lignin has great potential for the production of valuable aromatic compounds and has attracted considerable attention. The development of high value applications for Kraft lignin would boost the profitability of pulp and paper operations. A potential solution is the pyrolytic conversion of lignin to valuable liquids and solids. However, Kraft lignin is a thermally sensitive powder which tends to agglomerate under pyrolysis conditions. A mechanically fluidized reactor (MFR) can be used to monitor both the generation of vapours and gas during pyrolysis and how cohesive a feedstock becomes when pyrolyzed. The MFR was, therefore, used to evaluate alternative solutions to improve Kraft lignin behaviour by mixing it with non‐problematic feedstocks or by modifying its bed material. Finally, Kraft lignin behaviour and products were compared to those of hydrolysis lignins from different origins.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207