MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000749896 · doi:10.1016/j.jobab.2020.03.003

Utilization of discarded crop straw to produce cellulose nanofibrils and their assemblies

2020· article· en· W3000749896 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaran Miao, Jinyou Lin, Fenggang Bian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioresources and Bioproducts · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYouth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCelluloseStrawMaterials scienceChemical engineeringPulp and paper industryNanotechnologyChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A tremendous amount of wheat straw (WS) has been generated by wheat crops every year, while only a small percentage is being used in applications, and most get burned on the field, causing a large amount of the exhaust gas that pollutes the environment. Herein, we report on the extraction of cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) from the alkali treated WS by a combination of 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpyperidine-1-oxyl (TEMPO)-oxidation and mechanical disintegration method. The crystalline structures, thermal properties, natural charge of the CNF were examined. The resultant nano-building blocks of the CNF was assembled into macroscopic cellulose materials, i.e., film, aerogel, and filament in this work. Furthermore, the morphologies and microstructues as well as other properties of these three kinds of the CNF assemblies were investigated. The obtained CNF and its assemblies showed a potential application in new materials areas. This work explored a new way to utilize the discarded WS instead of being burned.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations145
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioresources and BioproductsSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207