Improved Measurement-System Assessment for Processes with 100% Inspection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the assessment of an automated continuous measurement system used for 100% inspection in a high- volume manufacturing process. Because of the automation, we assume that there are no operator effects. If the system stores the measured values, we effectively know the current process mean and standard deviation. Because of the high volume, we have parts available with values spread across the whole distribution.The standard plan for measurement-system assessment is to select k parts at random from the process and measure each of the selected parts n times. We then estimate the repeatability of the system using ANOVA. We propose two improvements. First, we demonstrate the substantial value of using the known process characteristics in the analysis. Second, we describe an alternative sampling plan where we deliberately select parts with extreme values from the population of measured parts to remeasure. We call this selection leveraging. We discuss the analysis of the leveraged plan and show that it is more efficient than the standard plan. We also discuss the planning and implementation of a leveraged assessment study and some associated issues and extensions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it