MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154535767 · doi:10.1515/npprj-2020-0100

A simplified kinetic model for modern cooking of aspen chips

2021· article· en· W3154535767 on OpenAlexafffund
W. W. Gilbert, Bruce Allison, T. Radiotis, Arnold Dort

Bibliographic record

VenueNordic Pulp & Paper Research Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
FundersFPInnovations
KeywordsResidualProcess engineeringComputer scienceLigninReduction (mathematics)Interval (graph theory)Range (aeronautics)MathematicsEngineeringAlgorithmChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Kraft pulping kinetic models are an important component of any fundamental continuity based continuous digester model. These models can be used to further develop our understanding, or as a framework to support the development of real-world control, estimation and optimization strategies. Effective models are tailored to a specific species of wood and must be applicable for a wide range of expected cooking conditions. In this work a series of experiments were conducted on hardwood Aspen chips for 5 different cooking conditions. Each series of cooks were interrupted at different time intervals to capture the dynamic response of the cook. The key chips and liquor components were measured and reconciled at each interval. A dynamic model was then developed based on a simplification of a continuous digester model under batch conditions. This ensures continuity between the key assumptions governing both the batch kinetics model and the expanded continuous form. A kinetic model structure was adapted from the literature that quantifies all three accepted phases of lignin and cellulose degradation, i. e. the initial, bulk and residual phases as well as the effect of modern cooking practices such as intra-cook white liquor addition on the transition between the bulk and residual phases. Additionally, modifications were made to the kinetic model structure to reduce the overall number of states and to impose a floor limit on degradation, thereby reducing the overall complexity and computational burden. The model was then fit to the data using weighted least squares and simulation optimization techniques.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNordic Pulp & Paper Research JournalSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207