Novel approaches for predicting efficiency in helically coiled tube flocculators using regression models and artificial neural networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, prediction models for turbidity removal efficiency (TRE) in helically coiled tube flocculators (HCTFs) are presented. The TRE was determined by physically modelling a compact, high‐performance and low detention time clarification system composed of a HCTF coupled to a decantation system. The values of hydrodynamic representative parameters of the flow were determined by CFD modelling. Eighty‐four different configurations of HCTFs were evaluated. Multiple linear/non‐linear regression and artificial neural network analyses were performed. A determination coefficient ( R 2 ) of 0.81 was obtained using multiple linear regression with the geometric and hydraulic parameters. In this model, the root mean squared error (RMSE) was 3.29%. Adding hydrodynamic parameters and using the artificial neural networks, R 2 reaches 0.96 and RMSE decay to 1.58%. These results indicate that the use of effective efficiency prediction models can be helpful in the design of new flocculation units and for the improvement of existing ones.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it