Comparison of various machine learning techniques for modeling the heterogeneous acid-catalyzed alcoholysis process of biodiesel production from green seed canola oil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple machine learning (ML) algorithms were developed using artificial intelligence, including Linear Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), and K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), to predict the yield of biodiesel production in an acid-catalyzed alcoholysis process using green seed canola oil. Catalyst loading, methanol-to-oil (M/O) molar ratio, and reaction time were considered as input parameters, while the yield of biodiesel production was selected as the output parameter. The performance of the developed ML models was assessed using evaluation metrics such as the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) and the root mean squared error (RMSE). The R 2 values obtained for LR, RF, DT, and KNN models were 0.80, 0.95, 0.97, and 0.84, respectively. Furthermore, the corresponding RMSE values for these models were 2.48, 1.51, 0.89, and 4.51, respectively. According to the results, the DT model exhibited superior accuracy and reliability for predicting biodiesel production compared to the other models. The values of the input variables to potentially yield the highest biodiesel output were identified through a systematic trial-and-error approach using the DT model. The results showed that a biodiesel yield of 88 % can be achieved with 5 wt% catalyst loading, a 22 M/O molar ratio, and a reaction time of 5 hours. • Efficiency of multiple machine learning algorithms in forecasting biodiesel yield from green seed canola oil. • Correlation between process variables and output performance in a biodiesel production system using Machine Learning. • Potential of Decision Tree model in optimizing biodiesel process conditions in acid-catalyzed alcoholysis.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it