MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143706300 · doi:10.1109/tr.2004.833311

Dominant Multi-State Systems

2004· article· en· W2143706300 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Reliability · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinary numberReliability (semiconductor)State (computer science)Component (thermodynamics)Image (mathematics)Computer scienceBinary imageAlgorithmReliability theoryFunction (biology)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceImage processingStatisticsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a definition of the dominant multi-state system. Under the proposed definition, multi-state systems are divided into two groups without reference to component relevancy conditions: dominant systems, and nondominant systems. Dominant systems can be further divided into two groups: with binary image, and without binary image. A multi-state system with binary image implies that its structure function can be expressed in terms of binary structure functions such that it can be treated as a binary system structure, and existing algorithms for reliability evaluation of binary systems can be applied for system performance evaluation. A technique is provided for establishing the bounds of performance distribution of dominant systems without binary image. The properties of dominant systems are studied. Examples are given to illustrate applications of the proposed definitions and methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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