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 OpenAlexaff
Steven M. Shechter, Matthew D. Bailey, Andrew J. Schaefer

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.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.147
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

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
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNaval Research Logistics (NRL)Same topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207