Effective approach to assess higher heating value of biomass from ultimate and proximate analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For proper design and operation of biomass‐based energy systems, it is important to determine the higher heating value (HHV) of biomass. In this paper, two machine learning (ML) approaches, namely extra trees (ET) and least squares support vector machine (LSSVM), are used to predict the value of HHV associated with biofuels. The data required for HHV calculation, including proximate and ultimate analyses datasets, were collected from the literature. The performances of these two ML approaches for predicting biomass HHV were then compared with other smart models available in the literature. Even though the available empirical models can predict the biomass HHV with acceptable precision, it was found that our proposed ML techniques have a superior performance based on the error analysis; the proposed approaches also consider all key biomass characteristics in the developed models. In addition, the ET model proved to be slightly more accurate compared to the LSSVM model. Additionally, the developed proximate‐based ET model showed better performance compared to the ultimate‐based ET model. The most influential parameters in the developed ET models for the proximate and ultimate approaches were determined to be ash fraction and carbon fraction, respectively. Finally, it was concluded that the smart modelling techniques can be utilized as a robust and reliable alternative predictive methodology to replace direct laboratory measurement of the biomass HHV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".