MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152511683 · doi:10.1109/icqr2mse.2011.5976671

Optimising burn-in procedure and warranty policy in lifecycle costing

2011· article· en· W2152511683 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWarrantyBurn-inActivity-based costingSensitivity (control systems)Product (mathematics)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceFunction (biology)Optimal maintenanceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an optimization model is developed to investigate the optimal burn-in time and warranty length of a product from a manufacturer's perspective. It is assumed that the cost of a minimal repair to the component which fails at age t is a continuous non-decreasing function of t. Out-of-warranty, if the product fails before its useful life limit, it causes customer dissatisfaction and incurs a penalty cost for the manufacturer. The properties of the optimal burn-in time and optimal warranty policy are also given. We provide a numerical example to illustrate our results. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the effect of model parameters on the optimal solution.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207