MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087967028 · doi:10.15376/biores.15.4.wang

Biological pretreatment of biomass to decrease energy consumption in mechanical defiberization process

2020· article· en· W3087967028 on OpenAlexafffund
Yingchao Wang, Shanshan Liu, Xiujing Liu, Liran Wu, Qiang Wang, Xingxiang Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanada Research ChairsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Lignocellulosic biomassBiochemical engineeringEnergy consumptionProcess (computing)Agricultural engineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringPulp and paper industryEnvironmental economicsBiofuelWaste managementComputer scienceEngineeringEcologyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is critical to develop sustainable, effective, and innovative technologies for society, particularly for processing of biomass, so that the green/ sustainable advantages can be extended to the final products. This review examined two-step biological-mechanical defiberization of lignocellulosic biomass to produce fibers. Two biological pretreatment methods of fungi and enzymes were mainly introduced, with particular focus on the energy consumption. Potential application methods, advantages, disadvantages, process economics, and future prospects of two biological pretreatment methods were considered to derive a complete road map for the proposed process. With the help of biological pretreatment, the mechanical pulping production could not only improve the paper strength, but also decrease energy consumption at about 40%. This process fits well with the green/sustainable strategy to produce lignocellulosic fibers with reasonable quality while having minimal environmental impact.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207