MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064101451 · doi:10.1002/qre.721

Optimal Mean and Tolerance Allocation Using Conformance‐based Design

2005· article· en· W2064101451 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 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceMathematical optimizationProcess capability indexLimit (mathematics)Process capabilityEngineeringWork in processMathematicsOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we invoke probability constrained optimization to establish a framework for allocating means and tolerances in design for quality that focuses on customer satisfaction at predictable cost levels. The optimal allocation minimizes the production costs while ensuring that responses conform probabilistically to their specification limits. An overall system probability of conformance is obtained from a quality policy (e.g. defect rate, process capability index). Probabilities are evaluated using limit‐state functions and fast integration methods. The three quality metrics (i.e. target/larger/smaller‐is‐best) and robustness are addressed naturally. The methodology is developed in detail and compared with the traditional minimum total cost approach. Optimal means and tolerances are found for an electro‐mechanical servo system and a power division circuit to illustrate the practicality and potential of the approach. Copyright © 2005 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.270 · 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