MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395666063 · doi:10.18280/mmep.110417

Classification of Salt Quality Based on the Content of Several Elements in the Salt Using Machine Learning

2024· article· en· W4395666063 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eka Mala Sari Rochman, Wahyudi Setiawan, Shofia Hardi, Kurniawan Eka Permana, Husni Husni, Yuli Panca Asmara, Aeri Rachmad

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFreezing and Crystallization Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Trunojoyo Madura
KeywordsSalt (chemistry)Quality (philosophy)ChemistryComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophyOrganic chemistryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salt is one of the commodities in Indonesia.Salt has a very strategic and sustainable role for human life.Apart from being used for daily consumption, salt is also used as a raw material for various industries Indonesia, as a country surrounded by coastlines, can be self-sufficient in salt production and meet domestic salt needs.However, not all the salt produced maintains sufficient quality for consumption.Therefore, monitoring of the produced salt's quality is necessary to categorize it.Even though the categorization of salt quality is still carried out manually, this research employs data mining techniques with three different algorithms: Naï ve Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbor (K-NN), and Support Vector Machine (SVM), to simplify and enhance the efficiency of the classification process.The dataset used was obtained from salt data in the Sumenep region of Madura that consists of 349 records with seven attributes: sulfate, magnesium, water content, calcium, not dissolved, NaCl(wb), and NaCl(db) with four data classes that represent grades of salt quality (K1, K2, K3, and K4), and the salt data is divided into training and testing sets using the k-fold cross-validation method.Test results indicate that the K-NN method provides better outcomes compared to other methods, with an AUC value reaching 99.0%, accuracy of 91.7%, F1 Score reaching 91.6%, precision of around 91.9%, and recall of around 91.7%.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicFreezing and Crystallization ProcessesFrench-language works237,207