MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362724001 · doi:10.53063/synsint.2023.31139

Recent advances in machine learning algorithms for sintering processes

2023· article· en· W4362724001 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSynthesis and Sintering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIron and Steelmaking Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSinteringArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning (ML) is a fast-growing field that has vast applications in different areas and sintering has had no exemption from that. In this paper, the application of ML methods in sintering of the various materials has been reviewed. Based on our review, it was used to optimize the sintering process and improve the characteristics of the final product. For instance, a supervised learning algorithm was used to predict the temperature and time based on the raw material properties and the desired properties of the final product in sintering. Among all ML methods, k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), regression analysis (RA), and artificial neural networks (ANN) had great applications in the sintering field. There are a limited number of papers that used deep learning in sintering. In conclusion, ML methods can be used to optimize sintering process in energy, cost and time.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · 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