MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087033015 · doi:10.1115/1.533558

Reliability Analysis of Non-Constant-Size Part Populations in Design for Remanufacture

2000· article· en· W2087033015 on OpenAlexafffund
Z. H. Jiang, L. H. Shu, B. Benhabib

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringPopulationConstant (computer programming)Computer scienceFailure rateWork (physics)EngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remanufacture offers significant economic and ecological advantages over other end-of-life options for appropriate products. The goal of this research is to estimate replacement requirements of parts in systems that are remanufactured. In our previous work, a novel repairable-system reliability model that allows system modifications was developed to describe a population of systems that are remanufactured. In this paper, the reliability model is modified to accommodate changes to the population size, while the population is in service, to better describe actual processes. The effects of two types of disturbances to population size, pulse and continuous, on the replacement rate behavior are studied. Analysis of actual industrial data is presented as an example of population replacement under continuous disturbance. This example confirms that a simulation using the reliability model described in this paper yields an estimate for replacement rate with acceptable error bound. [S1050-0472(00)00302-0]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanical DesignSame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207