A Computational Model for Determining the Optimal Preventive Maintenance Policy With Random Breakdowns and Imperfect Repairs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a system that is subject to random failures, and investigate the decision rule for performing renewal maintenance or preventive replacement (PR). This type of maintenance policy involves two decision variables. The first decision variable is the time between preventive replacements, or a fixed cycle time. To avoid unnecessary renewals or replacements at the end of a cycle, a cut-off age is introduced as the second decision variable. At the end of every cycle, if the system's virtual age is equal to or greater than the cut-off age, it will undergo a renewal or replacement; otherwise the renewal decision will be postponed until the end of the next cycle. Random failures can occur, however; and the system receives emergency imperfect repairs (ER) at these times. Hence, within a PR cycle, a second decision time is identified. If an ER occurs between the start of a cycle and this second decision time, then the planned PR would still be performed at the end of the cycle. However, if the first ER occurs after this second decision time, then the PR at the end of the cycle is skipped over, and the next planned PR would take place at the end of the subsequent cycle. With this simple mechanism, PR which follow on too closely after an ER are avoided, thus saving the unnecessary expense. We develop a computational model to determine the optimal maintenance policy with these two decision variables
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it