Study on Refining Performances in Chemi-mechanical Pulping of Mixed Poplar and Eucalypt Woodchips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The refining performances of mixed poplar and eucalypt woodchips (mixture ratio 6:4) were investigated at medium and high pulp consistency via chemi-mechanical pulping (CMP). The specific refining energy consumption (SEC), fiber fraction proportion, and Canadian standard freeness (CSF) were determined to evaluate the effects of pulp consistency and NaOH dosage on the refining performances of mixed poplar and eucalypt woodchips. While the dosage of NaOH for impregnation was maintained constant, the SEC and shive content increased with increasing pulp consistency. Different fractions obtained from the Bauer-McNett classifier showed that higher pulp consistency could be expected to yield more long fibers and shive in the stock. Upon increasing the NaOH dosage, the shive content and SEC reduced significantly. When the NaOH dosage was increased to 6%, the results indicated that it was difficult to reduce the shive content to less than 1% at high pulp consistencies (25%~35%), whereas 0.18% shive fraction could be achieved at a medium pulp consistency (15%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".