MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067365208 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20265

Comparison of stochastic methods with respect to performance and reliability of low‐temperature gas separation processes

2010· article· en· W2067365208 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulated annealingConvergence (economics)Reliability (semiconductor)Genetic algorithmMathematical optimizationComputer scienceProcess (computing)Stochastic optimizationWork (physics)Materials scienceMathematicsThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, the performances of two popular stochastic methods, the genetic algorithm (GA) and simulated annealing (SA), are verified in the optimization of low‐temperature gas separation processes. While the feasibility of GA optimization of low‐temperature processes has recently been addressed, our work studied the quality of GA solutions. Having optimized the solutions of three different case studies, it was observed that SA is more robust and reliable than GA when applied to such systems, and by adjusting the key parameters in the SA method, the optimization process can avoid pre‐mature convergence and is able to give the best near‐global results.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.257 · 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