A new reliability analysis method for repairable systems with closed‐loop feedback links
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 A new reliability analysis method for repairable systems with closed‐loop feedback link (CLFL) is proposed based on GO methodology. A method for creating new function GO operators is used to describe the CLFL. Next, methods for deducing the formulae of the new GO function are proposed. In addition, a 2‐level GO model is proposed for the GO operation of repairable systems with CLFL. And then, quantitative and qualitative analysis methods for repairable systems with CLFL based on the GO method are proposed, and a process for analyzing repairable systems with CLFL based on the new GO method is formulated. Finally, we used this new GO method to analyze the reliability of an electro‐hydraulic servo speed control system and a power‐shift steering transmission control system for a heavy vehicle. To verify the feasibility, advantages, and reasonability of the new GO method, we compared our results with those obtained by fault tree analysis, Monte Carlo Simulation, and an existing GO method using serial and parallel structures to represent the CLFL. All in all, the proposed method overcomes the limitations of the existing methods as well as increasing its applicability. And it provides a new approach for reliability analysis of repairable systems with CLFL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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