MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242839514 · doi:10.1504/ijmr.2017.086167

A ladle heat loss model for daily production

2017· article· en· W4242839514 on OpenAlex
Keyvan Rahmani, Vincent Thomson

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

VenueInternational Journal of Manufacturing Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLadleTundishCasterLiquid steelTRACRule of thumbEngineeringContinuous castingMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgyNuclear engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Production events and uncertainties impact ladle processing times, which in turn affect the steel temperature at the tundish. Deviations from the desired steel temperature in the tundish can result in production stoppage either due to premature solidification or due to liquid steel leakage at the caster. These stoppages are extremely costly and must be avoided by any means. Using a good method for estimation of heat losses that is linked to production parameters is very useful to reduce the risk of incorrect steel temperature. Most of the literature to date on computing the ladle heat loss is concerned with analytical and numerical solutions that are interesting academically or with regards to ladle design. This paper however is concerned with building a gross heat loss estimation model for a ladle in daily operation. It studies the important parameters that affect final steel temperature and uses actual production data to validate the analyses and conclusions. A rule of thumb for the cooling rate of steel in a ladle is developed with an average value of 0.55 to 1.40°C/min. [Received 25 December 2015; Accepted 22 February 2017]

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.293 · 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