MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386131031 · doi:10.26599/pbm.2016.9260004

Upgrading Paper-grade Softwood Kraft Pulp to Dissolving Pulp by Cold Caustic Extraction

2016· article· en· W4386131031 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Tian, Qingxian Miao, Linqiang Zheng, Yonghao Ni

Bibliographic record

VenuePaper and Biomaterials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissolving pulpPulp and paper industryPulp (tooth)HemicelluloseKraft processKraft paperSoftwoodCelluloseKappa numberDissolutionChemistryChromatographyExtraction (chemistry)Raw materialMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cold caustic extraction has potential applications in the production of dissolving-grade pulps due to its ability to selectively remove hemicellulose from lignocellulosic materials. In this study, we demonstrate the conversion of paper-grade kraft pulp into dissolving pulp by a single-stage cold caustic extraction. Under the extraction conditions of 12 wt% NaOH lye, 11% pulp consistency, a temperature of 35℃, and 2 h, a paper-grade softwood kraft pulp was purified to high-grade dissolving pulp with 97.1% <i>α</i>-cellulose content, 1.2% pentosane content, and narrowed molecular weight distribution. The resulting extraction filtrate was concentrated by nano-filtration to obtain the hemicellulose content of 59.0 g/L, while the permeate was a clear Na OH solution with 10.9 wt% concentration. A process configuration was also proposed, integrating this cold caustic extraction process with existing pulp and paper production and multi-purpose utilization of the extraction filtrate.

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)0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaper and BiomaterialsSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207