MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989464134 · doi:10.1109/tr.2014.2336391

Best Constant-Stress Accelerated Life-Test Plans With Multiple Stress Factors for One-Shot Device Testing Under a Weibull Distribution

2014· article· en· W1989464134 on OpenAlexaff
N. Balakrishnan, Man Ho Ling

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Reliability · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeibull distributionEstimatorShape parameterReliability (semiconductor)Scale parameterConstant (computer programming)Accelerated life testingStatisticsDelta methodTest planSensitivity (control systems)MathematicsStress (linguistics)Variance (accounting)Computer scienceEngineeringPower (physics)Electronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss here the design of constant-stress accelerated life-tests for one-shot device testing by assuming a Weibull distribution as a lifetime model. Because there are no explicit expressions for the maximum likelihood estimators of the model parameters and their variances, we adopt the asymptotic approach here to develop an algorithm for the determination of optimal allocation of devices, inspection frequency, and the number of inspections at each stress level, by assuming a Weibull distribution with non-constant scale and shape parameters as the lifetime distribution. The asymptotic variance of the estimate of reliability of the device at a specified mission time is minimized subject to a pre-fixed experimental budget, and a termination time. Examples are provided to illustrate the proposed algorithm for the determination of the best test plan. A sensitivity analysis of the best test plan is also carried out to examine the effect of misspecification of the model parameters.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on ReliabilitySame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207