MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014505406

P-12 Potential Compact Fiberboard From Combining Shredded Corrugated Cardboard and PET Water Bottles

2019· article· en· W7014505406 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - Andrews University (Andrews University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterial Properties and Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrugated fiberboardcardboardPolyethylene terephthalateBottleContainer (type theory)Plastic bagPlastic bottleMedium density fiberboard
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corrugated cardboard and plastic bottles (PET) can each be recycled; however the current research is looking at recycling both cardboard and PET into a new combined material. The current method of recycling corrugated cardboard is to shred and recombine the material to make new cardboard. According to the Container Recycling Institute (http://www.container-recycling.org/), only 7.5% of PET manufactured in the US and Canada are recycled. The sheer amount of corrugated cardboard and PET bottles can be recycled for other practical uses. Corrugated cardboard and PET bottles, when shredded and placed into a 3x3x6 inch mold, can be combined together and baked in an oven under compression. The shredded PET bottles will act as the combining agent to hold the shredded cardboard in the shape of a compact fiberboard.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.146
Teacher spread0.139 · 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