MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001884711 · doi:10.9734/jerr/2019/v9i417024

Application of Cationic Tapioca to Unmodified Pearl Corn Starch – A Papermaking Handsheet Study

2020· article· en· W3001884711 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Research and Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarchPapermakingCationic polymerizationCorn starchUltimate tensile strengthChemistryFood scienceMaterials sciencePolymer chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An handsheet study was performed to compare the application of unmodified pearl corn starch and cationic tapioca starch on 100% recycled paperboard. To analyze the benefits tensile index, Canadian Standard Freeness, and starch retention was measured. The results found that cationic tapioca starch had the highest tensile index at 61.36 N*m/g for a dosage rate of 16 lbs./ton at a comparable dosage for unmodified pearl corn starch at 48 lbs./ton the tensile index was 56.11 N*m/g. Tests of the Canadian Standard Freeness showed that the unmodified pearl corn starch had the lowest freeness at 34.3 ml. The cationic tapioca starch had a freeness of 53.5 ml. For starch retention, more starch was retained in the sheet with cationic tapioca starch, with only 0.0065 grams ending up in the filtrate, compared to 0.015 grams of filtrate for the sheet containing unmodified pearl corn starch.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.279 · 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