On the application and extension of system signatures in engineering reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Following a review of the basic ideas in structural reliability, including signature‐based representation and preservation theorems for systems whose components have independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) lifetimes, extensions that apply to the comparison of coherent systems of different sizes, and stochastic mixtures of them, are obtained. It is then shown that these results may be extended to vectors of exchangeable random lifetimes. In particular, for arbitrary systems of sizes m < n with exchangeable component lifetimes, it is shown that the distribution of an m‐component system's lifetime can be written as a mixture of the distributions of k‐out‐of‐n systems. When the system has n components, the vector of coefficients in this mixture representation is precisely the signature of the system defined in Samaniego, IEEE Trans Reliabil R–34 (1985) 69–72. These mixture representations are then used to obtain new stochastic ordering properties for coherent or mixed systems of different sizes. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2008
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".