MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147709030 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24128

Generalization of the integral and differential method for analysis of rate data by means of the fractional calculus

2021· article· en· W3147709030 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gylles Ricardo Ströher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFractional Differential Equations Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractional calculusLaplace transformMathematicsApplied mathematicsInteger (computer science)GeneralizationOrder (exchange)Ordinary differential equationDerivative (finance)Differential equationCalculus (dental)Mathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The kinetic study of chemical reactions is usually carried out by means of analysis of experimental rate data obtained during the evolution of a reaction in a batch reactor. The methods for analysis of rate data obtained in a batch reactor include the classical integral methods (CIM) and classical differential methods (CDM), which use temporal derivatives of the unit‐order concentration, dC A /dt , in the mass balance equation. The present study proposes these two methods of analysis in a generalized formulation that makes use of non‐integer order temporal derivatives, d α C A /dt α , 0 < α ≤ 1, called generalized integral method (GIM) and generalized differential method (GDM) in the present work. The solutions of the fractional ordinary differential equations (FODE) of GIM are presented using the Laplace transform technique and numerical fractional derivative evaluation methods for GDM application. The proposed generalized methods allow for the determination of the order and the specific reaction rate in the same way as the classical methods, that is, of integer order ( α = 1 ); however, generalized methods have the additional advantage of determining the fractional order of the temporal derivative.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFractional Differential Equations SolutionsFrench-language works237,207