MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044197877 · doi:10.1021/ie010500g

Control of Particle Size Distributions in Emulsion Semibatch Polymerization Using Mid-Course Correction Policies

2002· article· en· W2044197877 on OpenAlexaff
Jesus Flores‐Cerrillo, John F. MacGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmulsion polymerizationEmulsionNucleationParticle (ecology)Particle-size distributionParticle sizeMaterials scienceProcess (computing)Process engineeringPolymerController (irrigation)Process controlChemical engineeringPolymerizationComputer scienceBiological systemThermodynamicsPhysicsComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The manufacture of emulsion polymers with broad and bimodal particle size distribution (PSD) through in situ particle nucleation in semibatch reactors is difficult because of the sensitivity of particle nucleation phenomena to variations in reactor conditions, impurities, and surfactant and initiator properties. In this paper, we present several control strategies based on the use of readily available online and offline measurements to predict the final PSD and, if necessary, to compute mid-course corrections. Partial least squares (PLS) models are used to extract the necessary information from different sets of measurements, to predict the final PSD, and to define a control region, outside of which mid-course control actions are deemed necessary. Using a simulated styrene emulsion polymerization process as an example, these control strategies are shown to be highly effective and very practical for industrial implementation.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations109
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207