MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987056569 · doi:10.1504/ijseam.2014.063882

Selective maintenance considering two types of failure modes

2014· article· en· W1987056569 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Strategic Engineering Asset Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReliability engineeringComputer scienceFailure ratePreventive maintenanceMaintenance actionsProactive maintenanceOptimal maintenancePlanned maintenanceHazardEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Owing to limited maintenance resources, it may not be possible to perform all feasible maintenance actions on a system during the maintenance break between two successive missions. A subset of maintenance actions can then be selected from the available maintenance options so that the system can meet the next mission requirement. This maintenance policy is called selective maintenance. In this paper, selective maintenance has been performed for a system that has been subjected to the two types of failure modes: maintainable and the non-maintainable failure modes. The hazard rate due to the maintainable failure modes depends on the cumulative effect of the non-maintainable failure modes. A model has been used to show this relationship. An illustrative example has been used to demonstrate the effect of the two failure modes and the advantages of imperfect maintenance in selective maintenance decision making.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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