MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164663271 · doi:10.1142/s0218539309003277

THE EXACT RUN LENGTH DISTRIBUTION AND DESIGN OF THE S<sup>2</sup> CHART WHEN THE IN-CONTROL VARIANCE IS ESTIMATED

2009· article· en· W2164663271 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

VenueInternational Journal of Reliability Quality and Safety Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsControl chartControl limitsVariance (accounting)StatisticsMathematicsStandard deviationSet (abstract data type)Statistical process controlProcess (computing)Control (management)Distribution (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When monitoring the process variability, it is a common practice that a Phase I data set is used to estimate the unknown in-control process standard deviation σ 0 or variance [Formula: see text] to set up the control limits, then monitoring proceeds. Once the process is considered to be in-control, the estimated control limits are assumed as fixed. This practice ignores the effect of estimating the unknown in-control process variance [Formula: see text]. In this paper, we derive the exact run length distribution of the S 2 control chart when the in-control process variance [Formula: see text] is estimated and find that m = 200 or more Phase I samples are needed to neglect the effect of using estimated control limits. New control limits when m is small are also derived.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.313 · 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