MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397005312 · doi:10.1515/npprj-2024-0004

Estimating lags in a kraft mill

2024· article· en· W4397005312 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jerry Ng, Yuri Lawryshyn, Nikolai DeMartini

Bibliographic record

VenueNordic Pulp & Paper Research Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMillKraft paperKraft processPulp and paper industryIndustrial chemistryEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringWaste managementEngineeringBiochemical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In pulp mills, lags obscure the effect of upstream operations on downstream measurements. Here, we estimate lags in a Canadian pulp mill using autoregressive exogenous (ARX) models. First, we show that ARX models can approximate lags in a process simulation that resembles the liquor storage tanks in pulp mills, a major source of lag in the kraft recovery cycle. Then, we use ARX models to estimate the lagged effect of a change in species pulped on as-fired liquor heating value, viscosity, and boiling point rise. Additionally, we compare the predictions of the ARX models to autoregressive (AR) models and a persistence model. The estimated lags between a change in species and heating value (49 h) and boiling point rise (41 h) agree with a detailed simulation of the mill and are close to estimated hydraulic residence times, suggesting that the liquor tanks exhibit imperfect mixing. A lagged effect of species change on viscosity could not be identified. ARX and AR models produce similar predictions that are slightly better than those of a persistence model. Finally, we show that process measurements upstream of units characterized by large residence times will likely provide little benefit to prediction accuracy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNordic Pulp & Paper Research JournalSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207