MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805817685 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23250

Recent progress and challenges in process optimization: Review of recent work at ECUST

2018· article· en· W2805817685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoqiang Wang, Dong Dong Han, Yuefeng Lin, Wenli Du

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsProcess (computing)Process optimizationComputer scienceChemical processProcess controlManagement scienceWork in processAutomationHierarchyProcess developmentWork (physics)Biochemical engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Operations researchProcess managementEngineeringOperations managementBusinessMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Optimization is an eternal topic in chemical processes due to limited resources and various safety and environment constraints. The highly intense market competition has led to the realistic significance of optimizing chemical processes. Chemical processes in China have achieved considerable development in recent years, and new challenges to improve operations have emerged along with this development. This paper briefly overviews recent progress made by our laboratory and existing challenges in chemical process optimization. The process optimization is introduced from the perspective of automation hierarchy and its coordination, followed by our major work with emphasis on real‐time optimization and advanced control layers. Several cases of comprehensive optimization in typical chemical processes are highlighted in this paper. On the basis of these theoretical and industrial practices, challenges in process operations are discussed. Finally, opportunities for future research directions are proposed for high efficient operations and control of chemical processes.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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