MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comprehensive model optimization in pulp quality prediction: a machine learning approach

2017· article· en· W2589084111 on OpenAlexaff
Chin-Wei Huang, Luc Baron, Marek Balazinski, Sofiane Achiche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceKappa numberArtificial intelligenceFeature selectionFuzzy logicPulp (tooth)Genetic algorithmMachine learningData miningAlgorithmMathematicsMathematical optimizationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature selection in machine learning is of great interest since it is reckoned as creating more efficient predictive models in several engineering domains. It is even of special importance in the pulp and paper transformation industry as the knowledge of this particular process is generally very limited. In this paper, we first compared the performance of rule-based genetic algorithm and that of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system; the latter is found to be more precise in predicting the pulp quality. We then combined several data mining algorithms such as genetic algorithm-partial least square regression, along with other statistical methods, to explore the relevance of all the potential variables that could be used to predict the pulp ISO brightness, an important property that is usually linked to model performance and hence pulp quality prediction. A few highly relevant variables are thereby determined, and the full set of 79 variables obtained from a Chip Management System was trimmed down to an optimized combination of 3 inputs depending on their relevancy. Peroxide charge (P), average luminance (L) and hue (H) were chosen as the optimal subset to describe the ISO brightness of the pulp and the model was simplified without losing much of its accuracy. Finally, we derived the numbers of membership functions for each variable to further refine the fuzzy logic-based prediction model. The error then reached 2.18%. The loss on accuracy was compensated by adjusting to the fittest membership function numbers

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)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207