MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996204213 · doi:10.1108/13552510110407087

Genetic algorithms for reliability assessment of mining equipment

2001· article· en· W1996204213 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

VenueJournal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Diagnostics and Reliability
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringGenetic algorithmComputer scienceAlgorithmEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discusses an ongoing research work which attempts to formulate, develop and test mining equipment reliability assessment models based on genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are powerful and broadly applicable stochastic search techniques based on the principles of natural selection, heredity and genetics. The reason for selecting genetic algorithms is the fact that the reliability of mining equipment changes over time due to its dependence upon several covariates/factors (e.g. equipment age, the operating environment, number and quality of repairs). These factors combine to create a complex impact on an equipment's reliability function. Gives an example of the application of genetic algorithms to capture the impact of these factors on time between failures of a piece of mining equipment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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