Assessment of a Binary Measurement System in Current Use
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
Binary measurement systems that classify parts as pass or fail are widely used in industry, especially for systematic inspection in high-volume processes. In this context, we are likely to have available a large number of previously measured passed and failed parts. To support production and quality improvement, it is important to assess the misclassification rates, e.g., the probability of failing a conforming part or passing a nonconforming part. We may also want to estimate the unknown conforming rate. Here we focus on the assessment of a binary measurement system when no gold-standard measurement system is available. The standard assessment plan is to repeatedly measure a sample of parts and use a latent class model. We demonstrate the substantial benefit of supplementing the standard plan with the available data from the previously measured parts. We propose new sampling plans and compare them with the standard plan with respect to the precision of the estimators of the misclassification rates. We also give recommendations for planning an assessment study when we can sample from a population of previously measured parts.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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