Preferential crystallization: Multi‐objective optimization framework
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
Abstract A four objective optimization framework for preferential crystallization of D‐L threonine solution is presented. The objectives are maximization of average crystal size and productivity, and minimization of batch time and the coefficient of variation at the desired purity while respecting design and operating constraints. The cooling rate, enantiomeric excess of the preferred enantiomer, and the mass of seeds are used as the decision variables. The optimization problem is solved by using adaptation of the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm. The results obtained clearly distinguish different regimes of interest during preferential crystallization. The multi‐objective analysis presented in this study is generic and gives a simplified picture in terms of three zones of operations obtained because of relative importance of nucleation and growth. Such analysis is of great importance in providing better insight for design and decision making, and improving the performance of the preferential crystallization that is considered as a promising future alternative to chromatographic separation of enantiomers. © 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2009
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) | 0.003 | 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