MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887552486 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23325

Using cupriethylenediamine (CED) solution to decrease cellulose fibre network strength for removal of pulp fibre plugs

2018· article· en· W2887552486 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Wenhui Zhang, Ryan Mitchell Christensen, Ryan Lutes, Xuesi Liu, Jinli Zhang, Mark Martinez, Harshad Pande, Bruno Marcoccia, Yonghao Ni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaDomtar (Canada)University of New Brunswick
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSpark plugPulp (tooth)BreakupComposite materialMaterials scienceDissolutionDissolving pulpCellulose fiberDowntimePulp and paper industryCelluloseFiberChemical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The pulp and paper industry is the largest industrial sector that converts wood‐based materials into fibre‐related products. It is common for pulp fibre plugs to develop within pipelines and equipment causing operational downtime, which ultimately requires the use of costly procedures for plug removal. In this study, a laboratory‐scale set‐up was developed to measure the breakup pressure of pre‐formed plugs to indicate the plug (fibre network) strength. A cupriethylenediamine (CED) solution was investigated with regards to its ability to decrease the plug strength. When the concentration of the CED solution is 0.1 M or lower, the plug breakup pressure increases due to fibre swelling. Conversely, when the CED concentration is 0.2 M or greater, the plug breakup pressure decreases significantly due to partial fibre dissolution.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207