MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080827709 · doi:10.2202/1542-6580.1568

Equilibrium and Optimum: How to Kill Two Birds with One Stone?

2008· article· en· W2080827709 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical economicsChemical equilibriumMathematicsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceManagement scienceApplied mathematicsBiochemical engineeringEconomicsEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concepts of equilibrium and optimum have always been placed at the heart of chemical engineering science. Their understanding is extremely important both from the academic and practical aspects. In this paper, a complete analysis of the concept of equilibrium and optimum in terms of how they are related conceptually, graphically and mathematically is provided. The analyzed problem can be considered as a ``Germinating Seed Problem (GSP)", which gives rise to a ``Growing Tree" of problems.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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