Pattern‐based prognostic methodology for condition‐based maintenance using selected and weighted survival curves
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
Abstract This paper proposes a pattern‐based prognostic methodology that combines logical analysis of data (LAD) as an event‐driven diagnostic technique, and Kaplan–Meier (KM) estimator as a time‐driven technique. LAD captures the effect of the instantaneous conditions on the health state of a monitored system, while KM estimates the baseline reliability curve that reflects the effect of aging, based on the observed historical failure times. LAD is used to generate a set of patterns from the observed values of covariates that represent the operating conditions and condition indicators. A pattern selection procedure is carried out to select the set of significant patterns from all the generated patterns. A survival curve is estimated, for each subset of observations covered by each selected pattern. A weight that reflects the coverage of each pattern is assigned to its survival curve. Given a recently collected observation, the survival curve of a monitored system is updated on the basis of the patterns covering that observation. The updated curve is then used to predict the remaining useful life of the monitored system. The proposed methodology is validated using a common dataset in prognostics: the turbofan degradation dataset that is available at NASA prognostic repository. Copyright © 2017 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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