An ontology‐based procedure knowledge framework for the process industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Process industry enterprises rely heavily on expert experience in production, and expert knowledge is stored in multiple formats like, pictures, texts, videos, etc. Several isolated islands of information or knowledge are formed, and they are difficult to store, share, and expand upon. Therefore, the same procedure appears multiple times in different application scenarios, such as optimization scheduling, optimization operation, or fault diagnosis. If redundant knowledge is paid too much attention, decision‐makers will not be able to comprehensively consider business knowledge. Thus, a novel framework is proposed for the process industry to manage procedure knowledge. This paper first divides the detailed procedure of process plants into four layers, that is, raw materials, intermediate materials, operation, and products based on the P‐graph theory, which involves virtual hierarchies, nodes, and operations. Second, the domain ontology‐based procedure knowledge model is constructed. Finally, two experimental cases, the Tennessee Eastman (TE) and the ethylene production process, are studied to verify the procedure knowledge framework (PKF). The PKF provides a useful foundation for the subsequent construction of a superstructure model based on the P‐graph theory and is different from the previous industrial process industrial ontology model. The PKF has a theoretical basis for simulation calculation and makes future work based on PKF more accurate and interpretable.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".