MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246894716 · doi:10.15376/biores.210-222

Modeling energy consumption for the generation of microfibres from bleached kraft pulp fibres in a PFI mill

2007· article· en· W4246894716 on OpenAlexafffund
Ayan Chakraborty, Mohini Sain, Mark T. Kortschot, Subrata Bandhu Ghosh

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMillMaterials scienceKraft processSoftwoodPulp and paper industryKraft paperComposite materialPulp (tooth)Energy consumptionGrindingCelluloseYield (engineering)EngineeringMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to model the energy consumed in generating cellulose microfibres, 1 μm in diameter, as reinforcing agents, by refining bleached softwood kraft pulp in a PFI mill. An average initial fibre diameter of 13 μm was assumed. 125,000 revolutions in a PFI mill was found to produce a high yield of fibres 1.3 μm in diameter, and the minimum refining energy needed to reduce the fibre diameter to 1.3 μm was estimated as 1875 kJ for each 24 g charge in the PFI mill. Since elastic deformation of the fibres was found to be negligible, the size reduction was assumed to follow Rittinger’s Law. This gave a Rittinger’s constant of 28 J.m/kg for the given system. Using this value of Rittinger’s constant, the energy required to generate microfibres 1 μm in diameter was predicted as 2480 kJ for each 24 g charge in the PFI mill. It was deduced that microfibres generated in this way would cost a minimum of $2.37 per kilogram. Hence even this relatively inefficient method of grinding would not be prohibitively expensive, provided the resulting microfibres can be used as high quality reinforcements.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207