MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251619464 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14649009

Analysis of natural gas consumption and energy saving measures for powder coating and food processing companies in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)

2021· preprint· en· W4251619464 on OpenAlexaffabout
Md Maniruzzaman Akan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy Efficiency and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy consumptionEnergy intensityNatural gasEnvironmental scienceEfficient energy useEnergy balanceConsumption (sociology)Waste managementProcess engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small and medium industries (SMEs) savings analysis and meaningful performance indicators can help Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., and individual SMEs make effective decisions to improve facility performance. For this study, information on 11 SMEs’ energy consumption has been provided. This entails: preliminary benchmarking, separation of process and seasonal energy consumption, heating degree days, individual facilities owned reference temperature, normalized annual energy consumption, normalized process and seasonal energy consumption, oven energy consumption, energy balance of oven, energy intensity of oven, and non-productive energy consumption. The most appropriate performance indicator is energy intensity of oven-in bake ovens, cure ovens, and dry-off ovens. The results observed energy intensity in terms of natural gas consumption of bake ovens are from 24m3/ft3 to 30m3/ft3, where the intensity of ovens with finishing process companies are from 8m3/ft3 to 36m3/ft3. Potential natural gas savings from the facilities processing powder coating and baking are 19% to 53% of total oven energy consumption by reducing exhaust energy loss. In the same study observed in analyzing production scheduling, that 8% to 69% of energy consumption can be saved by proper shut-down operation and scheduling.

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)0.000
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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficiency and ManagementFrench-language works237,207