MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054562144 · doi:10.1111/1467-9876.00234

Monitoring Processes with Data Censored Owing to Competing Risks by Using Exponentially Weighted Moving Average Control Charts

2001· article· en· W2054562144 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeneral Motors of Canada
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)Control chartStatisticsChartComputer scienceMoving averageControl limitsEconometricsReliability engineeringProcess (computing)MathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY In industry, process monitoring is widely employed to detect process changes rapidly. However, in some industrial applications observations are censored. For example, when testing breaking strengths and failure times often a limited stress test is performed. With censored observations, a direct application of traditional monitoring procedures is not appropriate. When the censoring occurs due to competing risks, we propose a control chart based on conditional expected values to detect changes in the mean strength. To protect against possible confounding caused by changes in the mean of the censoring mechanism we also suggest a similar chart to detect changes in the mean censoring level. We provide an example of monitoring bond strength to illustrate the application of this methodology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.283 · 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