MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387338694 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25104

Probabilistic assessment of the safety profile of the <scp>Fischer–Tropsch</scp> process with a supercritical solvent

2023· article· en· W4387338694 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saúl Herrera‐Ovando, Arturo Jiménez‐Gutiérrez, Nikolaos Kazantzis, Mahmoud M. El‐Halwagi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess safetyProbabilistic logicSupercritical fluidProcess (computing)Monte Carlo methodProcess designComputer scienceWork in processProcess engineeringMathematicsEngineeringProcess integrationStatisticsThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inherent safety assessment during the design stage of chemical processes is typically conducted based on average values for design parameters. Under those conditions, the single‐point deterministic process performance assessment may be affected by the phenomenon known as the ‘flaw of averages’ in the presence of irreducible sources of uncertainty (performance evaluated at average conditions does not represent average performance). In this work, an inherent process safety assessment developed under a probabilistic formulation is presented. An evaluation of the proposed approach is performed in the case of a gas‐to‐liquid process system using a supercritical solvent for Fischer–Tropsch reactor systems. The pertinent uncertainty analysis is carried out using Monte Carlo simulation techniques to account for the propagation of uncertainty through the inherent process safety model and the derivation of probability distribution profiles for the associated metrics, thus statistically characterizing ranges of potential performance outcomes. The response variables were the autothermal reactor and the syngas flows. The results show that the input variables associated to the autothermal flow potentially generate the most hazardous conditions for the process. The results also show how the metrics are affected when uncertainty is explicitly taken into account at the design stage of the process, offering a more nuanced assessment and characterization of the inherent process safety profile.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicProcess Optimization and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207