MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236983193 · doi:10.1002/9781118914670.ch7

Process Simulation

2017· other· en· W4236983193 on OpenAlexaff
Simant R. Upreti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential algebraic equationNumerical partial differential equationsExponential integratorMathematicsDifferential algebraic geometryAlgebraic equationOrdinary differential equationDifferential equationIndependent equationApplied mathematicsSimultaneous equationsMultigrid methodBackward differentiation formulaExamples of differential equationsStochastic partial differential equationMathematical analysisNonlinear systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Process simulation is the solution of process models. This chapter focuses on simple and effective numerical methods that are widely used in process simulation to solve algebraic equations, ordinary differential equations, and partial differential equations. In process modeling, algebraic equations typically result from the steady state description of processes with lumped parameters. The chapter describes the numerical solution of linear algebraic equations, which forms the basis for the solution of non-linear algebraic equations. Newton-Raphson method is a computational algorithm to solve non-linear algebraic equations based on derivative information. Frequently encountered in process models, differential equations describe the change in system properties with space and time. Ordinary differential equations typically describe temporal property changes in uniform, or lumped-parameter parameters. Explicit Runge-Kutta methods have been used widely to solve ordinary differential equations. Accurate solutions of certain differential equations require very small step sizes with explicit methods in general. Such equations are called stiff equations.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.315 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207