MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monitoring Processes with Highly Censored Data

2000· article· en· W126006283 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan H. Steiner, Robert J. MacKay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quality Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeneral Motors of Canada
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)Control chartComputer scienceReliability engineeringStatistical process controlStatisticsProcess (computing)Shewhart individuals control chartMathematicsEngineeringEWMA chart

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for process monitoring in industry is ubiquitous. By monitoring process output, process changes may be rapidly detected and problems corrected. However, in many industrial and medical applications, observations are censored due to either inherent limitations or cost/time considerations. For example, when testing breaking strengths or failure times, often a limited stress test is performed and only a small proportion of the true failure strengths or failure times are observed. With highly censored observations, a direct application of traditional monitoring procedures is not appropriate. In this article, Shewhart-type X̄ and S control charts based on the conditional expected value weight are suggested for monitoring processes where the censoring occurs at a fixed level. We provide an example to illustrate the application of this methodology.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations77
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quality TechnologySame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207