MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338995105 · doi:10.1177/1748006x15595875

System availability enhancement using computational intelligence–based decision tree predictive model

2015· article· en· W2338995105 on OpenAlexaff
Qadeer Ahmed, Fatai Anifowose, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision treeFault tree analysisProcess (computing)Computer scienceReliability engineeringTree (set theory)Fault detection and isolationFault (geology)Decision tree modelData miningDecision modelMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

System availability is a key performance measure in the process industry. It ensures continuous operation of facilities to meet production targets, personnel safety and environmental sustainability. Process machinery condition assessment, early fault detection and its management are vital elements to ensure overall system availability. These elements can be explored and managed effectively by extracting hidden knowledge from machinery vibration information to improve plant availability and safe operations. This article describes a decision tree–based computational intelligence model using machinery vibration data to detect machinery faults, their severity, and suggests appropriate action to avoid unscheduled failures. Vibration data for this work were collected using a machinery simulator and real-world machine to show the applicability of the proposed model. Later, the data were analyzed to detect faults using decision tree–based model that was developed in MATLAB. Fault detection classification accuracies of 98% during training and 93% during testing showed excellent performance of the proposed model. The model also revealed that the proposed formulation has capability of detecting faults correctly in the range of 98%−99%. The results showed that the proposed decision tree–based model is effective in evaluating the condition of process machinery and predicting unscheduled equipment breakdowns with better accuracy and with reduced human effort.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and ReliabilitySame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207