MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Artificial Neural Network Prediction of Tribological Properties of Nano Lubricants with Eco-Friendly Refrigerant

2024· article· en· W4400114072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Yamini, Sivakami Sundari M, Santhoshkumar Sekar, Senthil Kumar K, S. Divya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLubricants and Their Additives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefrigerantTribologyNano-Artificial neural networkMaterials scienceEnvironmentally friendlyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the emergence of the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, there's been a prohibition on refrigerants in vapor compression systems that harm the ozone layer and contribute to global warming. While alternative refrigerants have been suggested, they tend to be more energy-intensive than the conventional ones they replace. A promising approach to mitigate this increased energy consumption lies in the use of innovative lubricants that can enhance system efficiency. Nano-lubricants have recently gained attention for their superior performance compared to traditional lubricants in refrigeration systems. However, formulating nano-lubricants and determining their composition with the desired thermophysical and tribological properties pose significant challenges. The development of nano-lubricants requires extensive experimentation, and predicting the properties of these lubricants, especially those that offer optimal performance, demands even more rigorous experimentation. Recently, Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have been employed to forecast system performance based on existing experimental data. In this study, we leverage literature data on nano-lubricants of varying compositions to design an ANN architecture. The model is then trained, assessed, and validated for predicting the properties of nano-lubricants with unknown compositions. The ANN's predictions are subsequently compared with actual results to gauge its accuracy and reliability.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 topicLubricants and Their AdditivesFrench-language works237,207