MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002692497 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450830310

Chemical Composition Determination at the Bottom Region of a Recovery Boiler Furnace by Direct Minimization of Gibbs Free Energy

2008· article· en· W2002692497 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andréa Oliveira Souza da Costa, Evaristo C. Biscaia, Enrique Luis Lima

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystallization and Solubility Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsGibbs free energyChemical compositionBoiler (water heating)Kraft processInitializationMathematicsKraft paperChemistryThermodynamicsComputer scienceEngineeringPulp and paper industryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An optimization strategy has been applied to describe the chemical composition at the furnace bottom in the Kraft recovery boiler of a pulp production process. The concentrations of each involved chemical species were calculated through an optimization approach, minimizing the Gibbs free energy of the system. Various systems were proposed and tested, assuming different chemical species and phases number. Because serious initialization problems were found at this stage for some of the proposed systems, an optimization heuristic method (PSO) was used for the first approach to the problem. Once the appropriate phases number and chemical species in the system were determined, the initialization problems disappeared and the use of a deterministic optimization method (SQP) became viable. The proposed approach has shown to be satisfactory to reproduce industrial data and also data reported in the open scientific literature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCrystallization and Solubility StudiesFrench-language works237,207