Selective preventive maintenance scheduling under imperfect repair
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
The demand for a system is sometimes available only for a finite time horizon. It thus becomes necessary to schedule maintenance activities during a given planning horizon such that the desired system performance is maintained and the available resources are optimally allocated. In this paper, a mathematical model is proposed for periodically planning preventive maintenance activities for a system comprising multiple components. Due to resource limitations, it may not be possible to perform all desired maintenance options; hence, a selective maintenance approach is used to find the components to be maintained and maintenance actions to be performed on the selected components. An imperfect maintenance based hybrid model is considered here which includes age reduction as well as hazard adjustment after maintenance. Due to the high dimension of the solution domain, evolutionary approach is used to solve the problem. The optimal number of intervals is found under reliability and maintenance time constraints. During each maintenance break, the optimal maintenance option is selected for each component such that the overall cost of maintenance and possible failures for the entire planning horizon is minimized. It is also found that considering one interval at a time will incur higher cost.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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