MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966223536 · doi:10.1080/10601325.2013.802143

Nitrile Rubber Reactor Operation Troubleshooting with Principal Component Analysis

2013· article· en· W1966223536 on OpenAlexaff
Alison J. Scott, Alexander Penlidis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Macromolecular Science Part A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroubleshootingMooney viscosityPrincipal component analysisProcess (computing)Statistical process controlNitrile rubberComputer scienceSynthetic rubberNatural rubberRanking (information retrieval)Process engineeringAcrylonitrileComponent (thermodynamics)Materials scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is employed as a tool in order to demonstrate yet another application of the technique, and, most importantly, to show that results from the statistical multivariate technique do make physico-chemical sense. The operation of a typical emulsion copolymerization of acrylonitrile and butadiene (nitrile butadiene rubber, NBR) is used as an example of process troubleshooting. In more general terms, a statistical tool is used to aid process data analysis and process operation (recipe, product property) troubleshooting. The goal is to produce consistent Mooney Viscosity (MV) among different batches. The observation is that varying induction times lead to Mooney Viscosity inconsistencies. Firstly, we show results from the application of PCA to process data. Secondly, we deal with an even more important (and often ignored) question by examining whether the trends indicated by PCA make process sense.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Macromolecular Science Part ASame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207