MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013579017 · doi:10.1109/coase.2010.5584605

A Quality Framework to check the applicability of engineering and statistical assumptions for automated gauges

2010· article· en· W2013579017 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical process controlCorrectnessOutlierComputer scienceProcess (computing)Process capabilityAutomotive industryQuality (philosophy)Industrial engineeringData miningStatistical modelGauge (firearms)Work in processEngineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In high-volume part manufacturing, interactions between program data and program flow can depart significantly from the initial statistical assumptions used during software development. This is a particular challenge for industrial gauging systems used in automotive part production where the applicability of statistical models affects system correctness. This paper uses a Quality Framework to track high-level engineering and statistical assumptions during development. Statistical Process Control (SPC) metrics define an “in-control” region where the statistical assumptions apply, and an outlier region where they do not apply. The gauge is monitored on-line to verify that production corresponds to the area of the operation where the gauge algorithms are known to work. If outliers are detected in the on-line manufacturing process, then parts can be quarantined, improved gauging algorithms selected, and/or process improvement activities can be initiated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.322 · 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