MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005333084 · doi:10.1002/bit.27294

Making sense of parameter estimation and model simulation in bioprocesses

2020· article· en· W3005333084 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology and Bioengineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaCentro de Recursos Hídricos para la Agricultura y la Minería
KeywordsBiochemical engineeringSense (electronics)EstimationBiological systemComputer scienceChemistryBiologyEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most articles that report fitted parameters for kinetic models do not include meaningful statistical information. This study demonstrates the importance of reporting a complete statistical analysis and shows a methodology to perform it, using functionalities implemented in computational tools. As an example, alginate production is studied in a batch stirred-tank fermenter and modeled using the kinetic model proposed by Klimek and Ollis (1980). The model parameters and their 95% confidence intervals are estimated by nonlinear regression. The significance of the parameters value is checked using a hypothesis test. The uncertainty of the parameters is propagated to the output model variables through prediction intervals, showing that the kinetic model of Klimek and Ollis (1980) can simulate with high certainty the dynamic of the alginate production process. Finally, the results obtained in other studies are compared to show how the lack of statistical analysis can hold back a deeper understanding about bioprocesses.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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