MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234892198 · doi:10.18280/rcma.290508

Production of Fiberboards from Shives Collected after Continuous Fiber Mechanical Extraction from Oleaginous Flax

2019· article· en· W4234892198 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philippe Evon, Benjamin Barthod-Malat, Marie Grégoire, Guadalupe Vaca‐Medina, Laurent Labonne, Stéphane Ballas, Thierry Véronèse, Pierre Ouagne

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des composites et des matériaux avancés · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraction (chemistry)Pulp and paper industryFiberProduction (economics)Waste managementEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceProcess engineeringChemistryChromatographyEngineeringComposite materialEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, fiberboards were produced from shives collected after continuous fiber mechanical extraction from oleaginous flax straw.Fiberboards were produced through thermo-pressing, and their mechanical and thermo-mechanical properties were studied, as well as their water resistance.The influence of one pretreatment for shives and lignin addition was investigated on the different properties.Boards obtained were all cohesive hardboards.The optimal board was obtained from fibers extruded from shives and without addition of any supplementary lignin amount.Looking at its characteristics and standard NF EN 312, the latter perfectly complied with the requirements for type P1 boards, i.e. boards for general uses in dry conditions.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des composites et des matériaux avancésSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207