Insight into fractionation performance of American old corrugated containers pulp in pressure screening
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, the American Old Corrugated Containers (OCC) pulp was screened using pressure screen to investigate the factors affecting the fractionation performance. Three screen cylinders with different geometries, aperture size/contour heights, volumetric reject ratios, and aperture velocities were used. The results showed that the passing ratio of fibres increased with the increase of contour height, volumetric reject ratio, and aperture velocity for all the three screen cylinders. Moreover, among the three cylinders investigated, the 0.81 mm hole cylinder achieved the highest fractionation efficiency with a volumetric reject ratio of 0.1 followed by 0.15 and 0.2 mm slot screens. Freeness change of the accept side of the screen was similar to passage ratio, which shows an increasing trend with the increasing aperture velocity and volumetric reject ratio. However, the reject freeness showed decreasing trends with the increasing aperture velocity <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:msub> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="italic">V</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="italic">s</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msub> </m:math> {V_{s}} and volumetric reject ratio <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:msub> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="italic">R</m:mi> </m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="italic">v</m:mi> </m:mrow> </m:msub> </m:math> {R_{v}} .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it