MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239516647 · doi:10.1520/stp49372s

Pretreatment of Douglas Fir Wood Biomass for Improving Saccharification Efficiencies

2011· book-chapter· en· W4239516647 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuels · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladding (metalworking)Atomic energyMaterials scienceHydrideMicrostructureZirconium alloyCrackingMetallurgyNuclear engineeringAgency (philosophy)Forensic engineeringComposite materialZirconiumEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this study was to analyze dilute acid pretreatment for the Douglas fir wood in order to improve the efficiency of hydrolysis with an ultimate aim to produce bioethanol. Compositional analysis of the untreated Douglas fir biomass revealed the presence of 63.3 % carbohydrate of which 57.2 % was C6 sugars. The total lignin content was approximately 30 %. A partial fractional factorial design was opted for performing the pretreatment experiments employing sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Acid concentration, solids loading, residence time, reaction temperature, and particle size of feedstock were evaluated simultaneously for improving the enzymatic digestibility of Douglas fir biomass. Enzymatic saccharification of the pretreated biomass was done using a commercial cellulase preparation and the total reducing sugars liberated was monitored. Saccharification efficiency was correlated with the parameters and the best combination of parameters for obtaining feedstock suited for enzymatic saccharification was determined.

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 score0.004

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuelsSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207