A CCC‐<i>r</i> chart for high‐yield processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The cumulative count of a conforming (CCC) chart is used to monitor high‐quality processes and is based on the number of items inspected until observing r non‐conforming ones. This charting technique is known as a CCC‐r chart. The function of the CCC‐r chart is the sensitive detection of an upward shift in the fraction defectives of the process, p. As r gets larger, the CCC‐r chart becomes more sensitive to small changes of upward shift in p. However, since many observations are required to obtain a plotting point on the chart, the cost is fairly high. For this trade‐off problem it is necessary to determine the optimal number of non‐conforming items observed before a point is plotted, the sampling (inspection) interval, and the lower control limit for the chart. In this paper a simplified optimal design method is proposed. For illustrative purposes, some numerical results for the optimal design parameter values are provided. The expected profits per cycle obtained using the proposed optimal design method are compared with those obtained using other misspecified parameter values. The effects of changing these parameters on the profit function are shown graphically. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".