MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523137375 · doi:10.1002/qre.2088

Modeling Failure Process and Quantifying the Effects of Multiple Types of Preventive Maintenance for a Repairable System

2016· article· en· W2523137375 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Uthman Said, Sharareh Taghipour

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality and Reliability Engineering International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConnaught FundSharif University of Technology
KeywordsPreventive maintenanceReliability engineeringPoisson processReliability (semiconductor)Corrective maintenancePlanned maintenanceTruckFunction (biology)Poisson distributionProcess (computing)EngineeringFailure rateComputer scienceStatisticsPower (physics)MathematicsAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a repairable system whose failures follow a non‐homogenous Poisson process with the power law intensity function. The system is subject to corrective and multiple types of preventive maintenance. A corrective maintenance has a minimal effect on the system; however, a preventive maintenance may reduce the system's age. We assume the effects of different preventive maintenance on the system are not identical and derive the likelihood function to estimate the parameters of the failure process as well as the effects of preventive maintenance. Moreover, we derive the conditional reliability and the expected number of failures between two consecutive preventive maintenance types. The proposed methods are applied to a real case study of four trucks used in a mining site in Canada. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality and Reliability Engineering InternationalSame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207