MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019971886 · doi:10.1109/tr.2014.2337811

Optimal Replacement Last With Continuous and Discrete Policies

2014· article· en· W2019971886 on OpenAlexafffund
Xufeng Zhao, Toshio Nakagawa, Ming J. Zuo

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Reliability · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersQatar National Research FundNanjing Tech UniversityNanjing UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationDiscrete time and continuous timeFocus (optics)Unit (ring theory)Operations researchMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes age and periodic replacement last models with continuous, and discrete policies. That is, an operating unit is replaced preventively at time T of operation as a strategic policy, or at a number N of working cycles to satisfy successive job completion, whichever occurs last. Such policies are named as replacement last, and their expected cost rates and optimal policies are obtained. However, the focus of this paper is to compare replacement last with replacement first policies, which are formulated under the classical assumption of whichever occurs first. From the points of cost and performability, different comparative methods for continuous and discrete optimizations are demonstrated to determine in what cases we should adopt replacement last rather than replacement first. All theoretical discussions in this paper are made analytically, and are computed numerically.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on ReliabilitySame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207