Flame-retardant strategies for lignocellulose: recent progress and prospect
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lignocellulose offers significant promise as a renewable and environmentally sustainable material for construction, while its inherent combustibility poses a major challenge to its widespread application, especially in fire-sensitive environments. In this review, the combustion behavior of lignocellulose and the key mechanisms underlying its flame-retardant strategies are examined. Various classes of flame retardants (FRs), categorized based on the functional elements, are discussed in terms of their flame-retardant mechanisms and interactions with lignocellulosic substrates. Emerging approaches that integrate FRs are explored and compared, with a focus on enhancing flame resistance while minimizing their adverse effects on material properties. Finally, the review concludes with an outlook on current challenges and future research directions, shedding the light to develop more effective, durable, and sustainable flame-retardant solutions for lignocellulose-based materials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it