MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072863921 · doi:10.1108/13552511111180203

Optimal replacement with minimal repair policy for a system operating over a random time horizon

2011· article· en· W2072863921 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelhakim Khatab, Daoud Aı̈t-Kadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime horizonMathematical optimizationSimple (philosophy)Function (biology)HorizonReliability engineeringOperations researchOriginalityComputer scienceValue (mathematics)Operations managementEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the optimization of the replacement with minimal repair policy for a system which experiences a time horizon of random length. Under such policy system replacement occurs at multiples of some period while minimal repair is performed at system failure between two successive replacements. Design/methodology/approach The objective function is the expected total cost composed of minimal repairs and replacements costs. A simple and compact expression is derived for the expected total costs and conditions under which an optimal replacement period exits are given. For sake of illustration, a numerical example is provided. Findings The paper finds that by the recent great technological development, the life cycle of present products is seen to be reduced more and more. This has motivated the development of maintenance optimization models for systems which experience an exact finite time horizon. Originality/value To ensure the benefits from the improved technologies, the information concerning the technological change must be taken into account. Such information is based on technological forecasting and difficult to obtain and merely rely on uncertainties.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quality in Maintenance EngineeringSame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207