Artificial Neural Networks: Comparison of Two Programs for Modeling a Process of Nanoparticle Preparation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) were used to predict nanoparticle size and micropore surface area of polylactic acid nanoparticles, prepared by a double emulsion method. Different batches were prepared while varying polymer and surfactant concentration, as well as homogenization pressure. Two commercial ANNs programs were evaluated: Neuroshell Predictor, a black-box software adopting both neural and genetic strategies, and Neurosolutions, allowing a step-by-step building of the network. Results were compared to those obtained by statistical method. Predictions from ANNs were more accurate than those calculated using non-linear regression. Neuroshell Predictor allowed quantification of the relative importance of the inputs. Furthermore, by varying the network topology and parameters using Neurosolutions, it was possible to obtain output values which were closer to experimental values. Therefore, ANNs represent a promising tool for the analysis of processes involving preparation of polymeric carriers and for prediction of their physical properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it