Biomechanical pulping with Phlebiopsis gigantea reduced energy consumption and increased paper strength : [summary]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomechanical pulping of whole logs pretreated with Phlebiopsis gigantea was investigated in several studies using loblolly and red pine. Results from these studies showed P. gigantea was able to colonize 90 to 100% of the freshly cut logs after 8 weeks, with little variation between replicate treatments. Up to a 59% decrease in resinous wood extractives was observed in loblolly and red pine logs inoculated with P. gigantea as compared to non- inoculated logs. Simons' staining, used to evaluate cell wall changes in mechanically refined pulp fibers during biological pulping processes, showed 55 to 77% of the fibers from treated logs stained, while 25 to 58% of the fibers from aged control logs stained. Refined wood from inoculated logs required less energy (9 to 27%) to reach a freeness of 100 Canadian Standard of Freeness than wood from non-inoculated logs. Pretreatment of red pine logs with P. gigantea also resulted in a 17%, 20%, and 13% increase in burst, tear, and tensile strength properties, respectively, as compared to paper derived from non-inoculated logs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".