MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408625128 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25677

Prediction control of <scp> CO <sub>2</sub> </scp> capture in coal‐fired power plants based on <scp>ERIME</scp> ‐optimized <scp>CNN</scp> ‐ <scp>LSTM</scp> ‐multi‐head‐attention

2025· article· en· W4408625128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Minan Tang, Chuntao Rao, Tong Yang, Zhongcheng Bai, Yuxuan Jiang, Yaqi Zhang, Wenxin Sheng, Zhanglong Tao, Changyou Wang, Mingyu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Gansu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCoalPower (physics)ChemistryComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predicting CO 2 concentration in post‐combustion carbon capture (PCC) systems is challenging due to complex operating conditions and multivariate interactions. This study proposes an enhanced RIME algorithm (ERIME) optimization‐based convolutional neural network (CNN)‐long short‐term memory (LSTM)‐multi‐head‐attention (ECLMA) model to improve prediction accuracy. The local outlier factor (LOF) algorithm was used to remove noise from the data, while mutual information (MI) determined time lags, and the smoothed clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) method optimized feature selection. The CNN‐LSTM‐multi‐head‐attention model extracts meaningful features from time series data, and parameters are optimized using the ERIME algorithm. Using a simulated dataset from a 600 MW supercritical coal‐fired power plant, the results showed that after LOF outlier removal, root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) improved by 10%–13%. Post‐MI delay reconstruction reduced RMSE to 0.00999 and MAE to 11.6937, with R 2 rising to 0.9929. After variable selection, RMSE and MAE further reduced to 0.00907 and 9.9697, with R 2 increasing to 0.9983. After ERIME optimization, the ECLMA model outperformed traditional models, reducing RMSE and MAE by up to 91.55% and 84.94%, respectively, compared to CNN, and by 85.91% and 69.47%, respectively, compared to LSTM. These results confirm the model's superior accuracy and stability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.179 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207