MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135543697 · doi:10.1002/aic.14113

Inventory pinch algorithm for gasoline blend planning

2013· article· en· W2135543697 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersOntario Research Foundation
KeywordsScheduleComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)RecipeGasolineAlgorithmGridMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringChemistryWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current gasoline blend scheduling practice is to optimize blend plans via fixed duration (e.g., days) multiperiod NLP or MINLP models and schedule blends via interactive simulation. Solutions of multiperiod models typically have different blend recipes for each time period. We introduce inventory pinch points and use them to construct an algorithm based on single‐period nonlinear model to minimize the number of different blend recipes. The algorithm optimizes multigrade blend recipes for each period delimited by the inventory pinch points and then uses a fine‐grid multiperiod fixed‐recipe MILP to compute blend volumes profile. If MILP is infeasible, a corresponding period between the pinch points is subdivided and recipes are reoptimized. In our case studies, solutions are computed in significant less time and are most often within 0.01% of the solutions by multiperiod MINLP. Reduced number of blend recipes makes it easier for the blend scheduler to create a schedule by interactive simulation. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 59: 3748–3766, 2013

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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