MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344953494 · doi:10.1177/1748006x16641767

Higher moments and probability distribution of maintenance cost in the delay time model

2016· article· en· W2344953494 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

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKurtosisSkewnessVariance (accounting)Reliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceRandom variableProbability distributionReliability engineeringTime horizonMathematicsStatisticsMathematical optimizationEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The delay time model is a practical way to model random occurrences of failures and the effect of inspection and maintenance actions on the reliability of a repairable system. The delay time model involves two random variables describing the time of initiation of defects and time to failure after the defect initiation. This article presents a clear and structured approach to the evaluation of maintenance cost using the theory of stochastic renewal processes. This article derives the mean, variance, skewness and kurtosis of the maintenance cost in a finite time horizon. Furthermore, the probability distribution of cost is accurately estimated using the Hermite polynomial model. Using the cost distribution, the value at risk is estimated and proposed as a measure to optimize the maintenance program.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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