MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1676976962 · doi:10.1063/1.1291337

On the independence of multiple inspections and the resulting probability of detection

2000· article· en· W1676976962 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Reliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringStatistical powerInterval (graph theory)Measure (data warehouse)Computer sciencePoint of deliverySensitivity (control systems)Power (physics)StatisticsData miningMathematicsEngineeringElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probability of detection (POD) is a critical measure of the performance, in terms of sensitivity and reliability, of a nondestructive testing system. For operation of safety-critical components, the interval of time allowable between inspections, the safe inspection interval (SII), is a function of flaw growth rates and POD. Traditionally, many people have assumed that repeating inspections provides significant benefit to POD, based on the assumption of partial or total independence of repeated inspections. The author demonstrates the errors in assuming independence of repeated inspections, and presents actual experimental POD data which further demonstrates the very small amount of independence between inspections. The effect on the calculation of safe inspection intervals is examined using real inspection data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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