MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800139388 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2015-0055

REAL-TIME RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT AND LIFETIME PREDICTION FOR BEARINGS USING THE INDIVIDUAL STATE DEVIATION BASED ON THE MANIFOLD DISTANCE

2015· article· en· W2800139388 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zu-wang Gan, Jian Ma, Chen Lü, Hongmei Liu, Tianmin Shan

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Bearing (navigation)RandomnessTransformation (genetics)Standard deviationComputer scienceProcess (computing)Reliability engineeringManifold (fluid mechanics)TrajectoryEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the real-time reliability evaluation and life prediction for rolling bearings has attracted more attention. Most of the existing methods employ real-time transformation of traditional reliability indices, performance degradation trajectory or distribution analysis, which usually have certain limitations in terms of accuracy and applicability. This paper proposes a method for bearing real-time reliability evaluation and life prediction to avoid the negligence of real-time transformation of the monitored individual, as well as reduce the errors caused by the randomness from individual bearing operational process. The individual state deviation of a running rolling bearing geometrically measured by manifold distance is normalized into a state deviation degree, which is used to formulate a modified real-time reliability model for realtime reliability evaluation and lifetime prediction. Finally, the feasibility and efficiency of this method is validated by bearing run-to-failure experiments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207