Insight into fractionation performance of American old corrugated containers pulp in pressure screening
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 V s {V_{s}} and volumetric reject ratio R v {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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".