MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102661347

Stochastic Justification of Some Simple Reliability Models

2002· article· en· W2102661347 on OpenAlexaff
Thierry Duchesne, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)InfinitesimalReliability (semiconductor)Function (biology)MathematicsApplied mathematicsEconometricsTransformation (genetics)Event (particle physics)Reliability theoryCalculus (dental)StatisticsMathematical analysisFailure rateEpistemologyThermodynamicsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we derive conditions on the internal wear process under which the resulting time-to-failure model will be of the simple collapsible form (Oakes, 1995, Duchesne and Lawless, 2000) when the usage accumulation history is available. We suppose that failure occurs when internal wear crosses a certain threshold and/or a traumatic event causes the item to fail (Cox, 1999 and Bagdonavičius and Nikulin, 2001). We model the infinitesimal increment in internal wear as a function of time, accumulated internal wear and usage history, and we derive conditions on this function to get a collapsible model for the distribution of time-to-failure given the usage history. We reach the conclusion that collapsible models form the subset of accelerated failure time models with time-varying covariates (Robins and Tsiatis, 1992) for which the time transformation function satisfies certain simple properties.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207