MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048781637 · doi:10.1142/s0218539312500192

AGGREGATE RISK MEASURES FOR DYNAMIC SYSTEMS FROM OPERATIONAL DATA

2012· article· en· W2048781637 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

VenueInternational Journal of Reliability Quality and Safety Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Aggregate (composite)EconometricsMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceRisk measureIndex (typography)Failure rateEconomicsStatisticsMathematicsData miningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complex systems are subject to failure with increased use and degradation. The risk process is the stochastic dynamic process of system failures and their severities. This paper considers aggregate risk measures for the risk process of complex systems in the context of stochastic ordering. The aggregation follows from the accumulation of losses from a series of failure events. The emphasis is on second-order risk measures which account for risk aversion as defined by concave utilities. A second-order measure termed the adjusted risk priority number (ARPN) is presented. The measure is constructed from well-known statistics: rate of failures, average severity of failures, and the Gini Index for severity of failures. The ARPN is contrasted with the traditional risk priority number (RPN) defined by the rate and average severity. The computation and use of the measures is illustrated with a spectrum of failure data from commercial aircraft in the USA.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.302 · 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