MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047416222 · doi:10.1002/qre.816

An optimal burn‐in preventive‐replacement model associated with a mixture distribution

2007· article· en· W2047416222 on OpenAlexaff
Renyan Jiang, Andrew Jardine

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality and Reliability Engineering International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean time between failuresBurn-inPreventive maintenanceReliability engineeringFailure rateHazardPopulationComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A mixture arises in a number of situations. A typical situation is that a population is heterogeneous and consists of several sub‐populations, which represent mutually exclusive failure modes (usually early failures where the mean time to failure (MTTF) is ‘short’ and wear‐out failures where the MTTF is ‘long’ and the hazard rate is increasing). When the time to failure of an item follows a mixture distribution, it is difficult to determine an appropriate operational or/and maintenance policy to reduce the early‐phase failures and field operational cost. This paper examines the effectiveness of jointly applying a burn‐in procedure and preventive replacement policy to such items, and discusses implementation‐related issues associated with the combined policy. A numerical example is also included. Copyright © 2007 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations47
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality and Reliability Engineering InternationalSame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207