MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024245239 · doi:10.1080/0740817x.2014.929363

Effects of subsystem mission time on reliability allocation

2014· article· en· W2024245239 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

VenueIIE Transactions · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKonkuk University
KeywordsFailure rateReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Order (exchange)Factor (programming language)EngineeringComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the early stages of system development, various factors are considered when determining an allocation weight to apportion a system’s reliability requirement to each subsystem. Previous methods have included subsystem mission time as a factor in obtaining the allocation weight in order to allocate a higher failure rate to a subsystem with a shorter mission time than the system’s mission time. This article, first shows that the results obtained from previous methods are misleading, mainly because the allocated failure rate of the subsystem is expressed in the system’s mission time rather than the subsystem’s mission time. It is further shown that if a designer intends to allocate a lower failure rate to a subsystem that has to operate longer in the system, subsystem mission time must not be included as a factor when determining the allocation weight. If a designer wants to allocate the system failure rate equally to each subsystem regardless of a subsystem’s mission time, subsystem mission time must be included as a factor.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.171 · 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