MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989455494 · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602471

A finite horizon model for repairable systems with repair restrictions

2007· article· en· W1989455494 on OpenAlexafffund
Diederik Lugtigheid, Xiangqian Jiang, Andrew Jardine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Operational Research Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Operations researchTime horizonComputer sciencePurchasingFunction (biology)Reliability engineeringEngineeringMathematical optimizationOperations managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we will present a new finite horizon repair/replacement decision model and derive the structure of the optimal policy for components that have a failure intensity that is a non-decreasing function of the number of times the component has been repaired, and independent of the component's age. Furthermore, the component has physical restrictions on the number of times it can be repaired, after which the only feasible decision is to replace the component. The fundamentals of this new decision model are based on the outcomes of several case studies done by the authors. Besides presenting the model and showing the structure of the optimal policy, the model will be applied to a real industry data set, and its results discussed.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Operational Research SocietySame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207