Variance-based importance analysis measure for mission reliability of phased mission system
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
Importance measures are used to estimate the relative importance of components to system reliability. Phased mission systems (PMS) have many components working in several phases with different success criteria, and their component structural importance is distinct in different phases. Additionally, reliability parameters of components in PMS always have uncertainty in practice. Therefore, existing component importance measures based on either the partial derivative of system structure function or component structural importance may have difficulties in PMS importance analysis. This paper presents a simulation method to evaluate the component global importance for PMS based on the variance-based method and the Monte-Carlo method. To facilitate the practical use, we further discuss the correlation relationship between the component global importance and its possible influence factors, and present here a fitting model for evaluating component global importance. Finally, two examples are given to show that the fitting model displays quite reasonable component importance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| 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