On the evaluating membrane flux of forward osmosis systems: Data assessment and advanced intelligent modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As an emerging desalination technology, forward osmosis (FO) can potentially become a reliable method to help remedy the current water crisis. Introducing uncomplicated and precise models could help FO systems' optimization. This paper presents the prediction and evaluation of FO systems' membrane flux using various artificial intelligence‐based models. Detailed data gathering and cleaning were emphasized because appropriate modeling requires precise inputs. Accumulating data from the original sources, followed by duplicate removal, outlier detection, and feature selection, paved the way to begin modeling. Six models were executed for the prediction task, among which two are tree‐based models, two are deep learning models, and two are miscellaneous models. The calculated coefficient of determination (R2) of our best model (XGBoost) was 0.992. In conclusion, tree‐based models (XGBoost and CatBoost) show more accurate performance than neural networks. Furthermore, in the sensitivity analysis, feed solution (FS) and draw solution (DS) concentrations showed a strong correlation with membrane flux. Practitioner Points The FO membrane flux was predicted using a variety of machine‐learning models. Thorough data preprocessing was executed. The XGBoost model showed the best performance, with an R2 of 0.992. Tree‐based models outperformed neural networks and other models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".