MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312567700 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.247

Application of Multivariable Data Analysis in Mineral Processing

2022· article· en· W4312567700 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maryam Azhin, Robert J.G. Lopetinsky, John Stiksma, F. Amjad, Bardia Hassanzadeh, Siddhartha Tirumalaraju, Chowdary Meenavilli

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsSherritt (Canada)
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsSoft sensorMultivariable calculusComputer scienceKey (lock)Data miningData processingOperator (biology)Nonlinear systemProcess (computing)Sampling (signal processing)Control engineeringArtificial neural networkMachine learningEngineeringFilter (signal processing)Database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data analysis and application of machine learning (ML) have demonstrated successful performance in various data rich industrial applications. Mineral processing and metallurgical operations are considered suitable for implementation of novel ML-based algorithms. The key operating performance and product outputs are usually obtained from the lab measurements and analyses that can be expensive, complex, and time consuming. Therefore, the development and application of a soft sensor and/or a state observer is a useful option to be considered due to their ability to provide the distribution of desired outputs in a continuous manner. In addition, the motivation to apply a soft sensor (a data-based model) is to provide guidance and/or information feedback to the operator in charge of making operational decisions. The soft sensor was developed at Sherritt's Metal Plant in Fort Saskatchewan as a nonlinear neural network model and it was based on two years of plant historical data. The model was also validated based on historical data, live testing, and additional sampling of process streams during simultaneous sampling campaign.

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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207