MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282534318 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22419

Economic MPC of deep cone thickeners in coal beneficiation

2015· article· en· W2282534318 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel predictive controlBeneficiationRobustness (evolution)Control theory (sociology)Controller (irrigation)CoalCone (formal languages)Computer scienceVolumetric flow rateMathematicsControl (management)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceWaste managementAlgorithmMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thickener is an important operating unit in a coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP). The optimal control and operation of the thickener is critical for the efficiency and economics of a CHPP. In this work, we apply a computationally efficient economic model predictive controller (EMPC) to a deep cone thickener and compare its performance to a proportional‐integral controller and a regular model predictive controller (MPC). Based on a detailed model of the deep cone thickener that is appropriate for controller design purpose, the three control designs are compared on different aspects, including average water recovery rate and controller execution time, via extensive simulations. The robustness of the EMPC is also investigated in the presence of random disturbances in feed flow rate. The results demonstrate that the EMPC has the potential to significantly improve water recovery rate compared to the proportional‐integral control and the regular MPC.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.169 · 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