MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068147352 · doi:10.1115/detc2010-28438

APU FMEA Validation and Its Application to Fault Identification

2010· article· en· W2068147352 on OpenAlexaff
Chunsheng Yang, Sylvain Létourneau, Marvin Zaluski, Elizabeth Scarlett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFailure mode and effects analysisReliability engineeringComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Fault (geology)Data miningRoot causeEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) is a standard method to characterize and document product and process problems at the design phase. The FMEA is often delivered to the end user along with the product or system. However, once the system is deployed, the corresponding FMEA is rarely validated and updated. This is mainly due to the lack of method to validate and update FMEA. This paper argues that historical maintenance and operational data could be used to help address this problem. Building on data mining and database techniques, the paper introduces a FMEA validation and updating technique. The proposed technique derives statistics from real world historical operation and maintenance data and uses these statistics to update key FMEA parameters such as Failure Rate and Failure Mode Probability. The paper then shows how the validated FMEA can be used with data mining for fault detection and identification of root contributing component for a given failure mode or failure effect. The paper presents the developed methodology for FMEA validation and experimental results for fault identification. The results show that the updated FMEA can provide more reliable and accurate information that could benefit the decision-making process and improve maintenance efficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Reliability and Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207