MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999715097 · doi:10.1142/s0218539303001056

Reliability Modelling with Fuzzy Covariates

2003· article· en· W1999715097 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

VenueInternational Journal of Reliability Quality and Safety Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateRandomnessReliability (semiconductor)Fuzzy logicComputer scienceMultiplicative functionReliability engineeringMathematicsData miningMachine learningStatisticsArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, we focus on covariate modelling to explore the interactions between industrial system and its enviroment in terms of the modelling fundamental characteristic — random and fuzzy uncertaity with an intention to decrease the fatal weakness of the modern dissection methodology. We extend the additive and multiplicative covariate models from these considering randomness alone into these considering both randomness and fuzziness in the sense as a mathematical extension to the existing covariate modelling. In terms of the form of logical function an engineering oriented fuzzy reliability model which could potentially count all the aspects associated with an operating system and its environment is proposed. Statistical estimation on the parameters of system fuzzy reliability is considered based on the general theory of the point processes. The impacts on the optimal plant maintenance from the engineering oriented fuzzy reliability modelling is also discussed. Finally we use an industrial example to illustrate the main theoretical developments.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.263 · 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