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

Reliability Modelling with Fuzzy Covariates

2003· article· en· W1999715097 on OpenAlexaff
R. Guo, Ernie Love

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.063
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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Reliability Quality and Safety EngineeringSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207