MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331393439 · doi:10.1515/1542-6580.2548

Multi-Objective Optimization of an Ethylene Oxide Reactor

2011· article· en· W2331393439 on OpenAlexaff
Allan Vandervoort, Jules Thibault, Yash P. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulti-objective optimizationEthylene oxideVolumetric flow rateMaximizationInletProcess engineeringMaterials scienceChemistryMathematical optimizationThermodynamicsEngineeringMathematicsPolymerMechanical engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, multi-objective optimization is performed for a reactor producing ethylene oxide from ethylene. The optimization considered three objectives: the maximization of the ethylene oxide production and selectivity, and the maximization of a safety factor related to the presence of oxygen in the reactor. The Pareto domain for this optimization problem was first approximated using the Objective-Based Gradient Algorithm, and the Pareto-optimal solutions were ranked using the Net-Flow procedure to determine the best operating conditions. From the optimization results, it is recommended that the ethylene oxide reactor be operated at high inlet pressure and gas temperature, and low inlet volumetric gas flowrate and chemical reaction moderator concentration. These operating conditions led to the highest ranked compromise solution, balancing the trade-off between each of the three objectives. Finally, it was found that a decrease in the inlet pressure or variation in the volumetric gas flowrate could readily lead to operating conditions outside of the Pareto domain, and these input variables should therefore be carefully controlled throughout operation of the reactor.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor EngineeringSame topicProcess Optimization and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207