MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095150328 · doi:10.1002/nav.20312

Replacing nonidentical vital components to extend system life

2008· article· en· W2095150328 on OpenAlex
Steven M. Shechter, Matthew D. Bailey, Andrew J. Schaefer

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

VenueNaval Research Logistics (NRL) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpare partComponent (thermodynamics)CounterintuitiveComputer scienceIndependent and identically distributed random variablesScheduling (production processes)A priori and a posterioriMathematical optimizationDistributed computingMathematicsRandom variableOperations managementStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider a system that depends on a single vital component. If this component fails, the system life will terminate. If the component is replaced before its failure then the system life may be extended; however, there are only a finite number of spare components. In addition, the lifetimes of these spare components are not necessarily identically distributed. We propose a model for scheduling component replacements so as to maximize the expected system survival. We find the counterintuitive result that when comparing components' general lifetime distributions based on stochastic orderings, not even the strongest ordering provides an a priori guarantee of the optimal sequencing of components. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2008

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.184 · 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