MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010277168 · doi:10.1002/qre.1112

Exploring process capability with <i>Mathematica</i>

2010· article· en· W2010277168 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Spiring

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality and Reliability Engineering International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceSoftwareSoftware packageIndustrial engineeringSoftware engineeringEngineering drawingProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several methods for estimating, assessing and monitoring process capability are illustrated using the software package Mathematica 7 (Mathematica 7. Wolfram Media: Champaign, IL, 2009). Graphical techniques that allow assessment of the underlying distributional properties of the process data as well as process capability are presented and illustrated. Several new conventions are proposed that attempt to provide insights into the process with diagnostic tools useful for, but not limited to the manufacturing sector. Several estimation and inferential techniques for the more common indices are presented with tools for determining associated values and the resulting inferences. This notebook is best viewed using Mathematica 7 or Mathematica Player 7. Mathematica Player 7 is a free download available at www.Wolfram.com/products/player/ that allows all features of the notebook to be viewed. Copyright © 2010 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality and Reliability Engineering InternationalSame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207