MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066909380 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20096

The integration of spectroscopic and process data for enhanced process performance monitoring

2008· article· en· W2066909380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris W. L. Wong, Richard E. A. Escott, Elaine Martin, Julian Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceProcess analytical technologyWork in processData analysisAnalyticsData miningFault (geology)Fault detection and isolationProcess engineeringData scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Batch process performance monitoring has been achieved primarily using process measurements with the extracted information being associated with the physical parameters of the process. With increasing attention now being paid to the application of on‐line real‐time process analytics through spectrometry, together with the FDA Process Analytical Technologies (PAT) initiative, the use of spectroscopic information for enhanced monitoring of reactions is gaining impetus. The harmonious integration of process data and spectroscopic data then becomes a major challenge. By integrating the process and spectroscopic measurements for multivariate statistical data modelling and analysis, it is conjectured that improved process understanding and fault diagnosis can be achieved. An investigation into combining process and spectral data using multiblock and multiresolution analysis is proposed and the results from the analysis of experimental data from two industrial application studies are presented to demonstrate the improvements achievable in terms of process performance monitoring and fault diagnosis.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207