MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409780583 · doi:10.55124/jbid.v2i2.247

Predictive Modeling of Process Parameters in WCO-Based Biodiesel Production Using Advanced Regression Techniques

2025· article· en· W4409780583 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tejasvi Gorre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of business intelligence and data analytics. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiesel productionProcess engineeringProcess (computing)Production (economics)Regression analysisRegressionBiodieselComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsEngineeringChemistryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil (WCO) presents a compelling opportunity to transform discarded oil into a renewable energy resource. Through the conversion of WCO into biodiesel, not only is waste effectively reduced, but a greener, more sustainable alternative to conventional fossil fuels is provided—furthering the shift towards environmentally conscious energy solutions. The importance of this research cannot be overstated. It plays a crucial role in advancing sustainable energy practices, especially by tapping into WCO as a viable and under utilized feedstock for biodiesel production. Consider the scale of global WCO generation: in Canada alone, 135,000 tons are produced annually, while in Asia, the figures soar to a staggering 5.5 million tons. The vast potential for converting this surplus waste into high-value biofuel not only promises substantial environmental benefits but also unlocks significant economic opportunities. The methodology leveraged three distinct machine learning models: Linear Regression (LR), Random Forest Regression (RFR), and Support Vector Regression (SVR). These models were rigorously trained and tested on experimental data derived from biodiesel production processes. The study delved into four critical parameters: Free Fatty Acid (FFA) content, fluctuating between 1.7% and 3.5%, moisture percentage ranging from 0.05% to 0.3%, viscosity measured at 35 to 43 cSt, and reaction time spanning 2 to 3.3 hours. The results were striking, underscoring the robust predictive power of all three models. SVR stood out, achieving the highest training accuracy (R² = 0.998), while RFR exhibited a remarkable ability to generalise well on unseen test data (R² = 0.989). The analysis uncovered compelling correlations: notably, a robust negative relationship between FFA content and biodiesel yield (-0.91), alongside a positive correlation between viscosity and yield (0.85). These findings underline the capacity of machine learning models to accurately predict biodiesel yields from waste cooking oil (WCO). Each model revealed unique strengths, yet even the simpler Linear Regression model, with an impressive R² of 0.979 on test data, pointed to a predominantly linear link between the process parameters and the final yield. Such insights provide invaluable guidance for refining industrial biodiesel production processes, championing the shift towards sustainable energy alternatives and addressing the pressing issues of waste management.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of business intelligence and data analytics.Same topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207