MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Point and Interval Estimation for a Simple Step-Stress Model with Type-II Censoring

2007· article· en· W109913410 on OpenAlexafffund
N. Balakrishnan, Debasis Kundu, Keung Tony Ng, Nandini Kannan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quality Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)MathematicsAccelerated life testingEstimatorMonte Carlo methodInterval estimationStatisticsConfidence intervalParametric statisticsPoint estimationExponential distributionApplied mathematicsStress (linguistics)Weibull distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In reliability and life-testing experiments, the researcher is often interested in the effects of extreme or varying stress levels, such as temperature, voltage, and load, on the lifetimes of experimental units. Accelerated testing allows the experimenter to increase these stress levels to obtain information on the parameters of the life distributions more quickly than would be possible under normal operating conditions. A special class of accelerated tests are step-stress tests that allow the experimenter to increase the stress levels at fixed times during the experiment. In this article, we consider the simple step-stress model under Type-II censoring. We derive the maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) of the parameters assuming a cumulative exposure model with lifetimes being exponentially distributed. The exact distributions of the MLEs of parameters are obtained through the use of conditional moment-generating functions. We also derive confidence intervals for the parameters using these exact distributions, asymptotic distributions, and the parametric bootstrap method, and assess their performance through a Monte Carlo simulation study.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations172
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quality TechnologySame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207