MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282980271 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24505

Quo Vadis advanced chemical process control

2022· article· en· W4282980271 on OpenAlex

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoProcess (computing)Heading (navigation)Control (management)Process controlField (mathematics)State (computer science)Current (fluid)Computer scienceEngineeringEngineering ethicsManagement scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Political scienceBusinessElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligenceLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The current state of advanced chemical and materials process control can be determined by reviewing the past contributions and contemporary developments in the field. The past two decades have not closed the large gap between developed novel process control theories and their industrial applications. On the contrary, the undeniable impression is that the ones who develop theories remain out of reach of industrial experts and practitioners who are capable of using them and/or applying them in practice. However, there is still hope that chemical process control will be heading towards more applicable and realizable control formulations and that it shall survive the current rugged terrains of seemingly self‐proclaimed ‘hot topics’ and eye‐catching developments.

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)0.000
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.164 · 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