MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308645678 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24759

Dynamic global feature extraction and importance‐correlation selection for the prediction of concentrate copper grade and recovery rate

2022· article· en· W4308645678 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhiqiang Wang, Xintong Zhang, Dakuo He

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisFeature selectionKernel principal component analysisRedundancy (engineering)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Data miningSupport vector machineFeature extractionArtificial intelligenceKernel (algebra)Scale (ratio)MathematicsKernel method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large‐scale industrial data have brought great challenges to data calculation and analysis. Feature extraction and selection have become one of the research emphases in data mining. To mine the dynamic characteristics of large‐scale industrial data, a dynamic global feature extraction (DGFE) method integrating principal component analysis (PCA) and kernel principal component analysis (KPCA) is proposed such that the achieved feature set is not only dynamic but also contains linear and non‐linear features. To ensure that the obtained feature set is optimal with the minimum redundancy, a new importance‐correlation‐based feature selection (ICFS) method is proposed. To verify the validity and feasibility of the proposed methods, the partial least square (PLS) and least square support vector machine (LSSVM) prediction models for the concentrate copper grade and the recovery rate are established. The effectiveness of the proposed methods is verified through data experiments on a copper flotation industrial process.

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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207