Artificial neural network modeling to predict the efficiency of phosphoric acid-hydrogen peroxide pretreatment of wheat straw
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphoric acid-hydrogen peroxide (PHP) pretreatment is an effective method to obtain a cellulose-enriched fraction from biomass. In this study, artificial neural network (ANN) was used to predict PHP pretreatment efficiency of cellulose content (C-C), cellulose recovery (C-Ry), hemicellulose removal (H-Rl), and lignin removal (L-Rl) under various conditions of pretreatment time (t), temperature (T), H3PO4 concentration (Cp), and H2O2 concentration (Ch). The final optimized topology structure of the ANN models had 1 hidden layers with 9 neurons for C-C and 10 neurons for C-Ry, 10 neurons for H-Rl, and 12 neurons for L-Rl. The actual testing data fit the predicted data with R2 values ranging from 0.8070 to 0.9989. The relative importance (RI) revealed that Cp and Ch were significant factors influencing the efficiency of PHP pretreatment with total RI values ranging from 12% to 62.6%. However, their weights for the three components of biomass were different. The value of T dominated hemicellulose removal effectiveness with an RI value of 78.6%, while t did not seem to be a main factor dominating PHP pretreatment efficiency. The results of this study provide insights into the convenient development and optimization of biomass pretreatment from ANN modeling perspectives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".