MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386129559 · doi:10.26599/pbm.2019.9260023

Cellulose Paper-based Strapping Products for Green/Sustainable Packaging Needs

2019· article· en· W4386129559 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePaper and Biomaterials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartonPaperboardStrappingCellulosePulp (tooth)Materials scienceComposite materialWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paper products such as corrugated paperboards are the most common green packaging materials, which are renewable, sustainable, recyclable and biodegradable. However, the plastic or metal straps used to secure the carton boxes are not so green. At the end of packaging, the carton boxes can be recycled, but the plastic/metal straps have to be sorted out for disposal separately. This review focuses on: 1) the global trend of green packaging; 2) conventional plastic/metal strapping materials for carton boxes; 3) conventional market pulp baling with steel wire as the tying materials; 4) cellulose fiber-based materials for strapping market pulp bales and carton boxes. New generation of cellulose paper straps are being developed for more challenging applications with superior strength properties and repulpability.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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