Mitigating pitch-related deposits at a thermomechanical pulp-based specialty paper mill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mill in Eastern Canada experienced significant sticky deposit formation on one of the guide rolls of the supercalendering stack in its supercalendered paper production line. To investigate, and minimize, the formation of those sticky deposits, we collected deposit samples from a supercalender stack and analyzed them for their chemical compositions, metal ion contents, and thermal properties. Acetone soluble substances, which were considered as pitch or wood extractives, were shown to account for the majority of these deposit samples. The thermogravimetric analyzer gave the result that, for the deposit sample, the mass loss due to heating in the temperature range of 50ºC–200ºC was less than 5%. Gas chromatography results showed similar chemistry for the deposit samples both before and after the thermogravimetric analyzer analysis. Throughout the mill process, a large portion of wood extractives passed through the thermomechanical pulp mill and into the paper mill with the pulp streams. Two control programs, detackification versus fixation, were compared to evaluate their ability to decrease the extractives-related deposit formation on the supercalendering stack.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".