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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess measurement system variation, we propose an alternative to the standard gauge reproducibility and repeatability (GR&R) study. The new plan, called a leveraged GR&R Study, is conducted in two stages. In the baseline stage, we select a sample of parts that are measured once only each using a fixed number of operators. Then we deliberately select extreme parts for the second stage where each operator measures each selected part a number of times. We demonstrate the advantages of the leveraged over the standard plan by comparing the standard deviations of the estimators of the parameters of interest. For a fixed number of operators and total number of measurements, we recommend leveraged plans with a baseline size that is roughly half the total number of measurements. We also recommend that the number of parts selected for the second stage be set to an integer multiple of the number of operators and that each of these parts be measured two or three times by each operator. This article has supplementary material online.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 it