MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124137606 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450850413

Detection, Diagnosis and Root Cause Analysis of Sheet‐Break in a Pulp and Paper Mill with Economic Impact Analysis

2007· article· en· W2124137606 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Syed Imtiaz, Sirish L. Shah, Rohit S. Patwardhan, H. Palizban, J. Ruppenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsCégep de l'Abitibi TémiscamingueUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot cause analysisRoot causeComputer scienceVisualizationData miningProcess (computing)Sheet metalReliability engineeringEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sheet‐break is a long standing problem in the pulp and paper industry. This study is concerned with the analysis of process data to diagnose causes of sheet‐breaks and therefore significant down times. PCA was used to model the process and a combined index based on the Hotelling's T 2 and Squared Prediction Error (SPE) was developed as a sheet‐break detection indicator. As the process is subject to external disturbances, changes and frequent interruptions, pre‐processing of the data played an important role in getting consistent results. We used several novel techniques for data selection, scaling and modelling. The models were validated using a large validation data set with known fault conditions. The developed model, data visualization tool and engineering judgement was used for off‐line diagnosis of root causes of sheet‐breaks. Several operational changes were recommended and implemented on the process resulting in significantly reduced sheet‐breaks. Key Performance Indicators calculated before and after the changes shows the significant economic gain as a result of this 'data‐mining' project.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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