MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599115091 · doi:10.1002/9781118985960.meh206

Reliability in the Mechanical Design Process

2015· other· en· W1599115091 on OpenAlex
B.S. Dhillon

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineers' Handbook · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeibull distributionReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringFailure rateComputer scienceProcess (computing)HazardEngineeringStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Various types of statistical distributions and hazard rate models are used in mechanical reliability to represent failure times of mechanical items. This chapter presents some of the distribution methods and models considered useful to perform various types of mechanical reliability analysis. It presents three statistical or probability distributions. They are exponential, Weibull, and normal. Over the years, many reliability allocation and evaluation methods have been developed for use during the design phase. The chapter presents some of the methods and techniques considered useful, particularly in designing mechanical items. There are many mathematical models available in the published literature that can be used to estimate failure rates of items such as bearings, pumps, brakes, filters, compressors, and seals . It presents some of those models. Failure data provide invaluable information to reliability engineers, design engineers, management, and so on concerning the product performance.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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