MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075882712 · doi:10.1115/detc2005-84495

Reliability Assessment Based on the Concept of Failure Surface Frontier

2005· article· en· W2075882712 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Discriminative modelLimit (mathematics)Reliability engineeringSurface (topology)Quadratic equationPoint (geometry)Limit state designComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Sampling (signal processing)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringMachine learningStructural engineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work proposes a novel concept of failure surface frontier (FSF), which is a hyper-surface consisting of the set of the non-dominated failure points on the limit states of a given failure region. FSF better represents the limit state functions for reliability assessment than conventional linear or quadratic approximations on the most probable point (MPP). Assumptions, definitions, and benefits of FSF are discussed first in detail. Then, a discriminative sampling based algorithm was proposed to identify FSF, from which reliability is assessed. Test results on well known problems show that reliability can be accurately estimated with high efficiency. The algorithm is also effective for problems of multiple failure regions, multiple most probable points (MPP), or failure regions of extremely small probability.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.274 · 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