Experimental methods in chemical engineering: Artificial neural networks–ANNs
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
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are one of the most powerful and versatile tools provided by artificial intelligence and they have now been exploited by chemical engineers for several decades in countless applications. ANNs are computational tools providing a minimalistic mathematical model of neural functions. Coupled with raw data and a learning algorithm, they can be applied to tasks such as modelling, classification, and prediction. Recently, their popularity has grown remarkably and they now constitute one of the most relevant research areas within the fields of artificial intelligence and machine learning. ANNs are large collections of simple classifiers called neurons. Chemical engineers apply them to model complex relationships, predict reactor performance, and to automate process controllers. ANNs can leverage their ability to learn and exploit large data sets, but they can also get stuck in local minima or overfit and are difficult to reverse engineer. In 2016 and 2017, ANNs were cited in 13 245 Web of Science (WoS) articles, 538 of which were in chemical engineering; the top WoS categories were electrical & electronic engineering (1615 occurrences) artificial intelligence (1253), and energy & fuels (980). The top 4 journals mentioning ANNs were Neural Computing & Applications (117), Neurocomputing (84), Energies (76), and Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (76). In the near future, as larger data sets become available (and arduous to analyze), chemical engineers will be able to apply and leverage more sophisticated ANN architectures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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