Multiple Regression and Big Data Analysis for Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems (PEMS) offer a cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative to Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for monitoring pollution from industrial sources. Multiple regression is one of the fundamental statistical techniques to describe the relationship between dependent and independent variables. This model can be effectively used to develop a PEMS, to estimate the amount of pollution emitted by industrial sources, where the fuel composition and other process-related parameters are available. It often makes them sufficient to predict the emission discharge with acceptable accuracy. In cases where PEMS are accepted as an alternative method to CEMS, which use gas analyzers, they can provide cost savings and substantial benefits for ongoing system support and maintenance. The described mathematical concept is based on the matrix algebra representation in multiple regression involving multiple precision arithmetic techniques. Challenging numerical examples for statistical big data analysis, are investigated. Numerical examples illustrate computational accuracy and efficiency of statistical analysis due to increasing the precision level. The programming language C++ is used for mathematical model implementation. The data for research and development, including the dependent fuel and independent NOx emissions data, were obtained from CEMS software installed on a petrochemical plant.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".