MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Process Capability Indices, <scp>B</scp> ayesian Estimation of

2014· other· en· W1746554673 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

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceEstimatorProcess (computing)Bayesian probabilityComputer scienceBayesian inferenceProcess capability indexProcess capabilityPerspective (graphical)Point processCluster (spacecraft)EstimationEconometricsStatisticsWork in processMathematicsEngineeringOperations managementArtificial intelligenceSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Practitioners often base inferences regarding the capability of a process on a point estimate of one of the common indices without examining the distributional properties of the estimator used. The practice is due, in part, to (a) the complexity of the indices developed and, at least initially, (b) the lack of stochastic development in the general area of process capability indices. Since the mid‐1980s the body of work addressing (a) estimation of and (b) drawing inference from process capability indices has grown steadily. Investigating process capability from a Bayesian perspective has mirrored this development. Much like the indices themselves, the Bayesian approach has seen two distinct patterns develop. One focus has been on examining parts nonconforming while a second examines the ability of a process to cluster around a target.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.341 · 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