MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Step‐Stress Testing with Multiple Samples: The Exponential Case

2014· other· en· W1870838047 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
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress (linguistics)InferenceExponential functionAccelerated life testingStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Step‐stress models are descriptions of special experiments in the field of accelerated life testing, where the test units are exposed to stress levels that change at intermediate time points during the experiment. The goal is to develop inference for the mean lifetime at each stress level. The time points of stress level change can either be fixed or random. Furthermore, the experiment can be terminated when a certain number of failures is reached or at a pre‐specified time point. These alternative assumptions of the type of the experiment lead to alternative models. Usually the step‐stress models are based on a single experiment. We develop inference for step stress models designed for multiple samples. The stress levels are the same applied to all samples but the duration of exposure under each stress level can vary among the experiments. The likelihood inference is then discussed in detail for the exponential case and different simple step‐stress experiments.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.226 · 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