FABRICATION OF HIGH STRENGTH PAPER FROM DIFFERENT TYPES OF PHOSPHORYLATED FIBERS USING HOTPRESSING AND FORMING AGENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphorylated fibers offer a broad range of applications, particularly in thermal insulation, notably with wood fibers, provided they exhibit improved mechanical characteristics. Despite encountering challenges in applying traditional papermaking methods, the creation of paper or board sheets with phosphorylated pulp fibers remains a challenge. Findings suggest that phosphorylation-modified fibers show increased roughness. Moreover, in comparison with unbeaten kraft sheets (KF) and thermomechanical pulp sheets (TMP), those made from phosphorylated kraft fibers (PKF), using a cationic coagulant and a flocculant, demonstrate significant enhancements in burst index, break index, and tensile energy absorption by 2.12 times, 1.7 times, and 2.77 times, respectively. Similarly, phosphorylated TMP sheets, prepared with a dual polymeric system (coagulant/flocculant), exhibit improvements of 1.42 times, 1.33 times, and 1.82 times, respectively, in these properties. The study emphasizes the ameliorating effect of cationic polymeric agents on the charge impact of phosphorylated fibers on overall sheet quality, while also highlighting the substantial influence of hot-pressing lignin-containing paper on all determined physical properties.
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".