More on the mis-specification of the shape parameter with Weibull-to-exponential transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When lifetimes follow Weibull distribution with known shape parameter, a simple power transformation could be used to transform the data to the case of exponential distribution, which is much easier to analyze. Usually, the shape parameter cannot be known exactly and it is important to investigate the effect of mis-specification of this parameter. In a recent article, it was suggested that the Weibull-to-exponential transformation approach should not be used as the confidence interval for the scale parameter has very poor statistical property. However, it would be of interest to study the use of Weibull-to-exponential transformation when the mean time to failure or reliability is to be estimated, which is a more common question. In this paper, the effect of mis-specification of Weibull shape parameters on these quantities is investigated. For reliability-related quantities such as mean time to failure, percentile lifetime and mission reliability, the Weibull-to-exponential transformation approach is generally acceptable. For the cases when the data are highly censored or when small tail probability is concerned, further studies are needed, but these are known to be difficult statistical problems for which there are no standard solutions. Copyright © 2000 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".