MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799506805 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23226

A data‐based optimal setting method for the coking flue gas denitration process

2018· article· en· W2799506805 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaning Li, Xuelei Wang, Zhenjie Liu, Xiwei Bai, Jie Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Gas Emission Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFlue gasProcess (computing)Computer scienceProcess optimizationSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringProcess engineeringMathematicsWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study focuses on developing an optimal setting method for the first integrated coking flue gas desulphurization and denitration device in China. Maintaining the denitration process in a state of optimal economic efficiency has become an issue in production optimization control. This paper proposes a data‐based two‐stage nonparametric optimization method to optimize the operation of the denitration process. A principal component regression (PCR)‐based multiple case fusion case‐based reasoning (CBR) method is proposed to obtain the initial optimization set points. To overcome the steady‐state modelling difficulties associated with the process, a local modelling method for the coking flue gas denitration process is developed using an improved just‐in‐time learning (JITL) algorithm. Taking the preset values obtained above as the initial value of an active set algorithm, the optimization problem can be solved in a timely and precise manner. The intelligent setting software has been developed for running industrial applications, and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed optimization approach.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicIndustrial Gas Emission ControlFrench-language works237,207