MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991006719 · doi:10.1002/ceat.201900096

Evolving an Accurate Decision Tree‐Based Model for Predicting Carbon Dioxide Solubility in Polymers

2019· article· en· W2991006719 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Soleimani, Amir Hossein Saeedi Dehaghani, Ali Rezai-Yazdi, Seyed Abolhassan Hosseini, Seyedeh Pegah Hosseini, Alireza Bahadori

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Engineering & Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolubilityPolymerDecision treeCompatibility (geochemistry)Boosting (machine learning)Carbon dioxideGradient boostingComputer scienceProcess engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceThermodynamicsBiological systemMachine learningOrganic chemistryRandom forestEngineeringPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Solubility is one of the most indispensable physicochemical properties determining the compatibility of components of a blending system. Research has been focused on the solubility of carbon dioxide in polymers as a significant application of green chemistry. To replace costly and time‐consuming experiments, a novel solubility prediction model based on a decision tree, called the stochastic gradient boosting algorithm, was proposed to predict CO2 solubility in 13 different polymers, based on 515 published experimental data lines. The results indicate that the proposed ensemble model is an effective method for predicting the CO2 solubility in various polymers, with highly satisfactory performance and high efficiency. It produces more accurate outputs than other methods such as machine learning schemes and an equation of state 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 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)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Engineering & TechnologySame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207