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 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

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.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
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