MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967144136 · doi:10.3390/su11164394

Pulp and Paper Mill Fly Ash: A Review

2019· review· en· W2967144136 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacs
KeywordsFly ashPaper millPulp (tooth)Waste managementEnvironmental sciencePulp millMillEngineeringPulp and paper industry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continual growth of pulp and paper industry has led to the generation of tremendous volumes of fly ash as byproducts of biomass combustion processes. Commonly, a major part of it is landfilled; however, updated environmental regulations have tended to restrict the landfilling of fly ash due to rising disposal costs and the scarcity of suitable land. The pulp and paper industries are therefore urgently seeking energy-efficient mechanisms and management for the beneficial use of fly ash in an ecological and economical manner. This paper offers a comprehensive review of existing knowledge on the major physicochemical and toxicological properties of pulp and paper mill fly ash to assess its suitability for various bound and unbound applications. The current state of various methods used for the valorization of pulp and paper mill fly ash into more sustainable geomaterials is briefly discussed. This paper also presents promising and innovative applications for pulp and paper mill fly ash, with particular reference to agriculture and forestry, the construction and geotechnical industries, and the immobilization of contaminants. It was identified from a literature review that modified pulp and paper mill fly ash can be environmentally and economically advantageous over commercial coal-based fly ash in various sustainable applications.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.258 · 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