MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042954058 · doi:10.15376/biores.15.3.xu

Current overview of carbon fiber: Toward green sustainable raw materials

2020· article· en· W3042954058 on OpenAlexaff
Yongjian Xu, Yan Liu, Shenglin Chen, Yonghao Ni

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLigninMaterials scienceSpinningRaw materialCarbon fibersFiberElectrospinningPulp and paper industryProcess engineeringComposite materialComposite numberPolymerOrganic chemistryChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lignin, as a potential precursor of carbon fiber, has the characteristics of abundant reserves, renewable and high carbon content, and its application in the preparation of carbon fibers has substantial cost advantages if some important processing and quality hurdles can be overcome. This paper reviews the preparation process of lignin-based carbon fibers, and moreover, describes the characteristics of carbon fiber prepared by different precursors compared with the presently used precursors. Three preparation methods for lignin-based carbon fibers are introduced: melt spinning, solution spinning, and electrospinning. The applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of the three preparation methods are analyzed from the aspects of process conditions and performance characteristics. Possible directions for future research are considered, with the goal of providing a reference for further study of lignin-based carbon fibers.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207