Kinetic modelling: Regression and validation stages, a compulsory tandem for kinetic model assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of robust and reliable kinetic models is vital to build safe, eco‐friendly, and cost‐competitive chemical processes. Establishing kinetic models for complex chemical systems such as biomass valorization is cumbersome because the kinetic modeller must test different models and fit several experimental observables (or concentrations). Usually, in chemical reaction engineering, kinetic model assessment is based solely on the regression stage outputs. The implementation of a validation stage can aid in choosing the most reliable kinetic models, essentially in the case of complex chemical systems. We studied the solvolysis of 5‐hydroxymethylfurfural (5‐HMF) to butyl levulinate (BL) as a model reaction constituting several consecutive and parallel reaction steps. From an existing kinetic model, we created 60 synthetic runs in batch conditions. In the first part, we tested four different models with 5 degrees of noise, and we carried out the modelling on the 60 synthetic runs. In the second part, two types of holdout methods were evaluated. In the last part, cross‐validation, namely the k‐fold method, was used. We found that the 10‐fold method allowed more efficient selection results even when the noise level was high. Besides, k‐fold allows for not scarifying experimental runs and selecting the most reliable model.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".