MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417486179 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.12.404

Foaming Prediction for CO2 Removal Absorber Column

2025· article· en· W4417486179 on OpenAlexaff
André Paulo Ferreira Machado, Biao Huang, Seshu Kumar Damarla, Bo Li, Adeyinka Opadeyi

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsNutrasourceUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Foaming agentKey (lock)Production (economics)Series (stratigraphy)Ammonia production

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In industrial processes, foaming detection is typically reactive, relying on fixed thresholds applied to individual process variables. This study presents a methodology for the early prediction of foaming events in the CO 2 removal section of an ammonia production plant. The proposed approach first identifies key variables and then uses Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Autoencoder, which are well-suited for learning complex temporal dependencies in multivariate time series data, to achieve early prediction of foaming events. The method is evaluated using data from real foaming events. The results demonstrate its effectiveness in providing early warnings, offering an advantage over traditional reactive detection methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207