MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530175131 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22717

Real‐time resource efficiency indicators for monitoring and optimization of batch‐processing plants

2016· article· en· W2530175131 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marc Kalliski, Sebastian Engell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsBatch processingResource efficiencyRecipeProcess (computing)Production (economics)Resource (disambiguation)Process engineeringComputer scienceBatch productionPerformance indicatorRepresentation (politics)Resource allocationIndustrial engineeringEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a framework for the definition and calculation of Real‐Time Resource Efficiency Indicators (REIs) for batch processes. The indicators are based on the allocation of resource and energy inputs to the individual batches and recipe operations as the basis for a comprehensive analysis and representation of the overall resource efficiency. The framework structures REIs into three categories describing (1) the efficiency of key unit operations, (2) the efficiency of the production of an individual batch, and (3) the overall system performance. Indicators from the last two categories can be propagated along the production process and can be aggregated vertically from units to sections and complete production sites. Chemical production processes often involve batch blending and splitting, separation processes, and continuous production steps. The framework allocates the contributions of the continuous steps to the batches and considers merging and splitting of batches. Thus, it yields a reliable and commensurate set of indicators that can be used to monitor and to optimize the resource efficiency of batch processing plants in real‐time in order to support the decision making process in daily operations. To demonstrate the approach, it is applied to a sugar production process that integrates batch and continuously operated unit operations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicProcess Optimization and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207