MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990057212 · doi:10.32964/tj15.2.69

Characterizing latency removal in mechanical pulping processes part I: Kinetics

2016· article· en· W2990057212 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiyang Gao, D. Mark Martinez, Jams Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueTAPPI Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatency (audio)Power consumptionKinetic energyKineticsEnergy consumptionPulp (tooth)Materials scienceProcess engineeringPulp and paper industryEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsPower (physics)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latency removal in the mechanical pulping process occurs in a continuous stirred-tank reactor and non-ideal mixing lowers the performance. In order to optimize the latency removal process and reduce the energy consumption in the operation, a kinetic study was carried out. In the study, the phenomenon of latency and knowledge related to latency removal were critically reviewed and discussed. Latency removal was characterized by the change of Canadian Standard Freeness (or freeness), and its dependences on treatment conditions, i.e., disintegration temperature, power input, pulp consistency and time, were determined. Kinetic models of latency removal for secondary refiner thermomechanical (TMP) and bleached chemithermomechanical (BCTMP) pulps have been developed, which were based on the rate of latency elimination characterized by the decrease of freeness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTAPPI JournalSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207