MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586157115 · doi:10.1115/imece2016-65380

Reliability Analysis Method for Multi-State Repairable Systems Based on Goal Oriented Methodology

2016· article· en· W2586157115 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaojian Yi, B.S. Dhillon, Huina Mu, Zhong Zhang, Peng Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 14: Emerging Technologies; Materials: Genetics to Structures; Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Markov processState (computer science)Computer scienceReliability engineeringReliability theoryMarkov chainOperator (biology)Process (computing)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringAlgorithmFailure rateMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new GO method for repairable systems with multiple unstable operation states. First, multi-state signal flow and multi-state GO operator are defined, respectively. And the formula for calculating state probability of unit with multiple unstable operation states is deduced based on Markov theory. Furthermore, a new function GO operator named Type 19 is created to describe the unit stabilizing property. And its GO operation formulas for reliability analysis are deduced. On this basis, the reliability analysis process of multi-state repairable systems based on the new GO method is formulated. Then, this new GO method is applied in reliability analysis of Hydraulic Oil Supply System of a heavy vehicle. In order to verify the feasibility, advantage and reasonability of the new GO method, its analysis result is compared with those of FTA and the existing GO method for two-state repairable systems. All in all, this paper not only improves the theory of GO method, and widens the application of GO method, but also provides a new approach for reliability analysis of multi-state repairable systems.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 14: Emerging Technologies; Materials: Genetics to Structures; Safety Engineering and Risk AnalysisSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207