Experimental methods in chemical engineering: Data processing and data usage in decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Industrial facilities collect large volumes of data, store them according to prescribed protocols, and then interpret them for process decision‐making. Several sources and types of error contaminate these data for various reasons, but especially because they come from unreliable or unpredictable instruments. Data (or signal) processing corrects measurement errors to improve fidelity. Here, we highlight decision‐making applications and signal processing methods. To fully appreciate the state‐of‐the‐art, we interviewed plant data experts and software developers in the pulp and paper industry to examine how they apply signal processing methods in the context of decision‐making, including the value of process data, how these data are used, and the major barriers that prevent plants from using data. Process experts clean data thoroughly with basic approaches compared to the advanced techniques available in the recent literature. The interviews demonstrate that decisions in industry are primarily based on steady‐state process operating data. Challenges and barriers that prevent the use of process data to their full potential relate to resource limitations (people, time, and money), an entrenched culture, and access to recent technology. In practice, experts consider, implicitly or explicitly, data that represent the process operating under steady‐state conditions. A plant model that represents steady‐state operations is easier to interpret, is presented in a form that is usable by plant operators, and in this way, better enables decision‐making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".