MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768292544 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.7b02905

Molecular-Based Bayesian Regression Model of Petroleum Fractions

2017· article· en· W2768292544 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Mei, Zhenlei Wang, Biao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Science Foundation of Shanghai
KeywordsBayesian probabilityRegressionRegression analysisBayesian linear regressionPetroleumEconometricsComputer scienceStatisticsBayesian inferenceChromatographyChemistryMathematicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular reconstruction of petroleum fractions is for determining the detailed molecular compositions in the mixture from a few measurable bulk properties, e.g., density, Reid vapor pressure (RVP), molecular weight, and ASTM boiling point curves etc., which is a great challenge because the number of hydrocarbon compounds is much larger than that of the bulk properties. In this paper, a novel molecular reconstruction method is developed which includes two Bayesian regression models for bulk properties’ prediction and molecular reconstruction. By defining a characteristic function of bulk property and then establishing its general mixing rule with respect to compositions, the bulk property is predicted from a linear regression model with sigmoidal basis functions whose parameters can be estimated by maximizing a posterior distribution from a well-determined database containing bulk properties and molecular information on petroleum fraction samples. Furthermore, by developing a prior distribution of the molecular information with an assumption that the compounds in the hydrocarbon mixture have an independently and identically distributed (iid) gamma distribution and combining the likelihood function used in bulk properties’ prediction, the molecular information is thus reconstructed by maximizing a new posterior distribution. Case studies of naphtha fractions demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

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)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207