MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807792305 · doi:10.1145/3232616

Maintenance of Smart Buildings using Fault Trees

2018· article· en· W2807792305 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Sensor Networks · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsDependabilityComputer scienceReliability engineeringFault tree analysisFault toleranceMarkov chainReliability (semiconductor)Real-time computingDistributed computingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timely maintenance is an important means of increasing system dependability and life span. Fault Maintenance trees (FMTs) are an innovative framework incorporating both maintenance strategies and degradation models and serve as a good planning platform for balancing total costs (operational and maintenance) with dependability of a system. In this work, we apply the FMT formalism to a Smart Building application and propose a framework that efficiently encodes the FMT into Continuous Time Markov Chains. This allows us to obtain system dependability metrics such as system reliability and mean time to failure, as well as costs of maintenance and failures over time, for different maintenance policies. We illustrate the pertinence of our approach by evaluating various dependability metrics and maintenance strategies of a Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning system. 1

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 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 score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.276 · 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