Proxy quality control of biomass particles using thermogravimetric analysis and Gaussian process regression models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The temperature experienced by reactants during preparation in a reactor is a key component in determining the yield and homogeneity of usable chemical products such as biomass particles. Thermocouples with sensors can be used to monitor spatial temperature gradients within reactors but these sensors are often too expensive and/or invasive. The present work proposes a strategy to identify optimal machine learning models to infer the maximum effective temperature experienced by particles during oxidative biomass torrefaction using key thermochemical combustion parameters. The maximum rate of weight loss, the corresponding temperature, and fixed carbon content on a dry‐ash‐free basis are used as literature‐based predictor variables obtained from thermogravimetric analysis. The evaluation of 24 machine‐learning models using the standard tenfold cross‐validation method suggests that the exponential Gaussian process regression (GPR) model is the most effective, followed by other GPR models. These high‐performing GPR models were also utilized to predict the effective preparation temperature distribution of reactor‐produced biomass particles under eight conditions of varying residence time and air‐to‐biomass ratio. The effective preparation temperature and residence time of individual biomass particles were then encoded into the torrefaction severity factor and used to estimate the energy yield of the reactor output as a novel quality control method. © 2023 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Industrial Chemistry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".