MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987070912 · doi:10.1115/gt2008-50566

On the Prediction of Nitrogen Oxides From Gas Turbine Combustion Chambers Using Neural Networks

2008· article· en· W1987070912 on OpenAlexaff
Marc LaViolette, Michael Strawson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkEmpirical modellingCombustionComputer scienceGas turbinesMathematical modelCombustion chamberMachine learningMathematicsSimulationEngineeringChemistryMechanical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a method of predicting the oxides of nitrogen emissions from gas turbine combustion chambers using neural networks. A short review of existing empirical models is undertaken and the reasoning behind the choice of correlation variables and mathematical formulations is presented. This review showed that the mathematical functions obtained from the underlying theory used to develop the semi-empirical model ultimately limit their general applicability. Under these conditions, obtaining a semi-empirical model with a large domain and good accuracy is difficult. An overview of the use of neural networks as a modelling tool is given. Using over 2000 data points, a neural network that can predict NOx emissions with greater accuracy than published correlations was developed. The coefficients of determination of the prediction for the previous published semi-empirical models are 0.8048 and 0.7885. However one tends to grossly overpredict and the other underpredict. The coefficient of determination is 0.8697 for the model using a neural network. Because of the nature of neural networks, this more accurate model does not allow better insight into the physical and chemical phenomena. It is however, a useful tool for the initial design of combustion chambers.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207