MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131408733 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20660

Mathematical modelling of chemical processes—obtaining the best model predictions and parameter estimates using identifiability and estimability procedures

2011· article· en· W2131408733 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentifiabilityEstimation theoryMathematicsModel selectionModel parameterApplied mathematicsMean squared errorSelection (genetic algorithm)StatisticsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chemical engineers who develop fundamental models often have difficulties estimating all model parameters due to problems with parameter identifiability and estimability. These two concepts are reviewed, as are techniques for assessing identifiability and estimability. When some parameters are not estimable from the data, modellers must decide whether to conduct new experiments, change the model structure, or to estimate only a subset of the parameters and leave the others at fixed values. Estimating a reduced number of parameters can lead to better model predictions with lower mean squared error (MSE). MSE‐based techniques for parameter subset selection are discussed and compared. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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)0.001
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.215
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