Framework Model for Asset Maintenance Management
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
This paper presents the development of a generic framework for asset maintenance management. The framework has been presented in the form of an IDEF0 process model. The process model served to illustrate the interaction and dependencies among a diverse set of knowledge areas. In this framework, outputs from one management process become inputs to another in a subsequent hierarchy. The structure of the framework model exhibited the characteristics of flexibility and robustness. Updates in knowledge can be accommodated within the framework through incorporating new management processes and/or activities, as well as establishing new sequencing logic for these processes and/or activities. In a supporting effort to the development of the framework model, the writers have objectively reviewed the general capabilities of three commercially available software applications that are known within the asset management (AM) industry. These three applications, while encompassing a wide selection of capabilities, represent a typical selection of information technology (IT) tools and techniques that are widely used in strategic AM practices. The objective of this review is to study the operational characteristics and functionalities, and to assess the capability of software interoperability, of a representative sample of IT tools known within the AM industry.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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