MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333407321 · doi:10.1021/ie102316b

Scale-up of a Pharmaceutical Roller Compaction Process Using a Joint-Y Partial Least Squares Model

2011· article· en· W2333407321 on OpenAlexaff
Zheng Liu, Mark‐John Bruwer, John F. MacGregor, Samarth S.S. Rathore, David E. Reed, Marc Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsProSensus (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRibbonPartial least squares regressionScale (ratio)CompactionProcess (computing)Computer scienceProduct (mathematics)MathematicsEngineeringStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Garcia-Munoz et al. [Garcia-Munoz, S.; Kourti, T.; MacGregor, J. F. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2005, 79, 101–114] proposed a new latent variable regression methodology, joint-Y partial least squares (JYPLS), for product transfer between plants. In this paper, this method is used for product scale-up from a type of laboratory-scale roller compactor, a Fitzpatrick IR220, to a type of full-scale roller compactor, a Fitzpatrick IR520, in the pharmaceutical industry. A JYPLS model is first built with the data set collected from historical experiments on these two types of compactors. The JYPLS model relates API mass fraction, excipient mass factions, and roller compaction process measurements to ribbon properties. A constrained optimization is then formulated to invert the JYPLS model to find the key process settings of the Fitzpatrick IR520 to make the same quality of ribbon using the same raw materials formulation as the ribbon that had been produced on the Fitzpatrick IR220.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.396
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.002 · 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 designBench 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207