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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliability Theory, since it's beginnings in 1950s, has been based on mathematical theorems rather then on scientific theories. Massive attempts where made to further applications of the existing mathematical and statistical methods and analysis without attempts for understanding "failure mechanics". Then, in 1980s, practicing reliability engineers and analysts, who have neither ability nor need to understand the mathematics, turned to what they have had, which is enormous practical experience of the observed failure modes of existing systems. Thus, a large number of "practical reliability methods" have been developed and used, all of which were based on the failure mode, effect and criticality analysis, but still without understanding and addressing failure mechanics. Consequently, during the last 50 years the Reliability Theory made very little progress, a part from a few exceptions, in the direction of becoming the science, in terms of making accurate predictions that could be confirmed with practical observations. The reason is very simple; neither statistics, which does not study causes of statistical behaviour, nor engineers whose "applied methods" were focused on meeting contractual and legal requirements, were able to provide a fertile ground for the development of reliability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it