Machine learning modelling and evaluation of jet fires from natural gas processing, storage, and transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Jet fires and their repercussions play a significant role in catastrophic incidents that typically have a cascading impact in process industries. Several hydrocarbon experiments from 19 papers were incorporated into the current endeavour to develop simulations of jet flames using machine learning (ML) models. Dimensionless characteristics have been used as output and input variables, including mass flow rates, fuel density, jet flame length, and heat release fluxes. When training three layers of the multi‐layer feedforward neural network (MLFFNN) method, a Bayesian regularization backpropagation approach was adopted and evaluated with the radial based functions (RBF) algorithm. Through an optimization procedure, the first and second hidden layers of the MLFFNN have been optimized to include 10 and five neurons, respectively. The RBF algorithm with 40 neurons in a single layer has been computed using the same method. The best mean square error (MSE) validation results for RBF and MLFFNN were 0.006 and 0.0002, respectively, for 40 and 100 epochs. The MLFFNN and RBF models' respective regression statistical analysis outputs were 0.9949 and 0.9645. The ML method has been identified as a potentially useful technique for precisely predicting the geometrical and radiative characteristics of jet flames.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".