MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106687296 · doi:10.1109/tr.2009.2034947

Evaluating the Reliability Function and the Mean Residual Life for Equipment With Unobservable States

2009· article· en· W2106687296 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Ghasemi, Soumaya Yacout, Mohamed-Salah Ouali

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Reliability · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnobservableResidualMoment (physics)Markov processReliability (semiconductor)Degradation (telecommunications)Markov chainState (computer science)Stochastic processContinuous-time Markov chainBayes' theoremApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematicsReliability engineeringMarkov modelStatisticsEconometricsMarkov propertyAlgorithmEngineeringBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes a model to calculate the reliability function, and the mean residual (remaining) life of a piece of equipment, when its degradation state is not directly observable. At each observation moment, an indicator of the underlying unobservable degradation state is observed, and the monitoring information is collected. The observation process is due to a condition monitoring system where the obtained information is not perfect. For that reason, the observation process doesn't directly reveal the exact degradation state. To match an indicator's value to the unobservable degradation state, a stochastic relation between them is given by an observation probability matrix. It is assumed that the equipment's unobservable degradation state transition follows a Markov chain, and we model it using a hidden Markov model. The Bayes' rule is used to determine the probability of being in a certain degradation state at each observation moment. Cox's time-dependent proportional hazards model is considered to model the equipment's failure rate. This paper addresses two main problems: the problem of imperfect observations, and the problem of taking into account the whole history of observations. Two numerical examples are presented.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations93
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on ReliabilitySame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207