MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996390469 · doi:10.1109/iccie.2010.5668354

Processing missing and inaccurate data in a condition based maintenance database

2010· article· en· W1996390469 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataComputer scienceData miningContext (archaeology)Data collectionCondition monitoringMaintenance engineeringDatabaseReliability engineeringMachine learningEngineeringStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Condition-based maintenance (CBM) is a maintenance approach wherein equipment repair or replacement decisions are based on the current and projected health of the equipment measured by periodic collection and analysis of data. In this context, the accuracy of data is vital. Unfortunately, missing and inaccurate data are recurring problems in many CBM database. These problems can cause bias or lead to inaccurate analysis. A comparison between five methods of processing missing and inaccurate data is presented. The comparison is based on calculating the accuracy of diagnosis of machine's health when the algorithm called Logical Analysis of Data (LAD) is used. An application is presented when data is processed by these methods. The results are shown and 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.

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)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207