MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011235829 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20398

Modelling of a clinker rotary kiln using operating functions concept

2010· article· en· W2011235829 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Technology and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre de Recherche Industrielle du Québec
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCement Association of Canada
KeywordsKilnClinker (cement)Rotary kilnRepresentation (politics)Control theory (sociology)Process (computing)State-space representationControl engineeringComputer scienceState spaceState variableEngineeringMechanical engineeringControl (management)MathematicsAlgorithmCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modelling and parameter identification of complex dynamic systems/processes is one of the main challenging problems in control engineering. An example of such a process is clinker rotary kiln (CRK) in cement industry. In the prevailing models independently of which structure is used to describe the kiln's dynamics and the identification algorithm, parameters are assumed to be centralised and constant while the CRK is well known as a distributed parameter system with a strongly varying dynamic through time. In this work, the kiln's dynamic is described in the form of a state‐space representation with three state variables using a system of partial differential equations (PDE). The structure is chosen so that it can easily be embedded in classical state‐space control algorithms. The parameters of the PDE system are called operating functions since their numerical values vary with respect to different operating conditions of the kiln, to their position in the kiln, and through time. A phenomenological approach is also proposed in this paper to identify the operating functions for a given steady‐state operation of the kiln. The model is then used to perform a semi‐dynamic simulation of the process through manipulating main process variables.

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 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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.167 · 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