MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080119853 · doi:10.1080/19392699.2010.527876

Study Relationship between Inorganic and Organic Coal Analysis with Gross Calorific Value by Multiple Regression and ANFIS

2011· article· en· W2080119853 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Chehreh Chelgani, Brian Hart, William C. Grady, James C. Hower

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemLiptiniteMathematicsHeat of combustionCorrelation coefficientNonlinear regressionStatisticsCoefficient of determinationLinear regressionMaceralCoalRegression analysisMineralogyFuzzy logicChemistryEngineeringWaste managementArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceInertiniteCombustionFuzzy control system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between maceral content plus mineral matter and gross calorific value (GCV) for a wide range of West Virginia coal samples (from 6518 to 15330 BTU/lb; 15.16 to 35.66 MJ/kg) has been investigated by multivariable regression and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). The stepwise least square mathematical method comparison between liptinite, vitrinite, plus mineral matter as input data sets with measured GCV reported a nonlinear correlation coefficient (R 2) of 0.83. Using the same data set the correlation between the predicted GCV from the ANFIS model and the actual GCV reported a R 2 value of 0.96. It was determined that the GCV-based prediction methods, as used in this article, can provide a reasonable estimation of GCV.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations36
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Coal Preparation and UtilizationSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207