MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094136778 · doi:10.1108/13552510010341207

Joint determination of the optimum target mean and variance of a process

2000· article· en· W2094136778 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

VenueJournal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaguchi methodsVariance (accounting)Process (computing)Reduction (mathematics)Function (biology)Quality (philosophy)StatisticsMathematical optimizationMathematicsValue (mathematics)Joint (building)Computer scienceEconometricsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there has been a lot of interest in the economics of quality control. Many researchers have considered the problem of determining the optimal target mean for a process, but almost all of them have assumed that the process variance is fixed and known in advance. The problem of simultaneously determining the optimal target mean and target variance for a process is considered. This might result in a reduction in variability and in the total cost of the production process. A reduction in variability upholds the modern concept of Taguchi’s loss function, which states that any deviation from the target value incurs economic loss, even when the quality characteristic lies within the specification limits. Taguchi’s loss function is incorporated to extend this study further to jointly determine the optimal target mean and variance.

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)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.322 · 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