MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767305150 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v7n1p26

Accelerated Life Test Sampling Plans under Progressive Type II Interval Censoring with Random Removals

2017· article· en· W2767305150 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siu‐Keung Tse, Chang Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)MathematicsStatisticsAcceptance samplingMonte Carlo methodSampling (signal processing)Importance samplingVariance (accounting)Confidence intervalAccelerated life testingSample size determinationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceWeibull distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the design of accelerated life test (ALT) sampling plans under progressive Type II interval censoring with random removals. For ALT sampling plans with two over-stress levels, the optimal stress levels and the allocation proportions to them are obtained by minimizing the asymptotic generalized variance of the maximum likelihood estimation of model parameters. The required sample size and the acceptability constant which satisfy given levels of producer’s risk and consumer’s risk are found. ALT sampling plans with three over-stress levels are also considered under some specific settings. The properties of the derived ALT sampling plans under different parameter values are investigated by a numerical study. Some interesting patterns, which can provide useful insight to practitioners in related areas, are found. The true acceptance probabilities are computed using a Monte Carlo simulation and the results show that the accuracy of the derived ALT sampling plans is satisfactory. A numerical example is also provided for illustrative purpose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.011
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207