MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385070961 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25047

Comparative study of artificial intelligence based multi‐modelling approach and optimization of photoreactor

2023· article· en· W4385070961 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Somnath Chowdhury, Aratrika Roychowdhury, Sandip Kumar Lahiri

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic programmingArtificial neural networkPredictabilityGenetic algorithmBiological systemComputer scienceResponse surface methodologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study presents a generic methodology for modelling and optimizing a reactor with complex and poorly understood kinetics. Here, a photoreactor is considered which performs photodegradation of sodium oxalate salt in spent Bayer liquor. Multiple data‐driven modelling methods, including artificial neural networks (ANN), genetic programming (GP), hybrid genetic programming‐grey wolf optimization (GP‐GWO), and multi‐gene genetic programming (MGGP), were used to model the reactor's performance based on experimental data. The input parameters considered for modelling were initial solution pH, power of the lamp, total organic carbon, and catalyst loading. The models were evaluated based on their predictability, explainability, complexity, and adherence to the reactor's phenomenology. The MGGP model was found to be the most effective and was used to generate surface plots showing the parity between experimental results and model predictions. Additionally, the MGGP model was optimized using GWO to determine the process conditions that maximize the reaction rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207