MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808679788 · doi:10.1109/icccbda.2018.8386592

Constrained optimal designs for step-stress accelerated life testing experiments

2018· article· en· W2808679788 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)Stress (linguistics)Accelerated life testingOptimal designComputer scienceStress testing (software)Maximum likelihoodFisher informationMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider multiple step-stress accelerated life testing (ALT) plans with time-censoring. The maximum likelihood method is used for estimating the model parameters. The information matrix is derived, and the optimal stress levels and the optimal stress-changing times are determined under three optimality criteria: D-, A-, and Q-optimalities for the proportional hazards models. The efficiencies of our resulting optimal three-step-stress ALT plans are compared with their competitors. The efficiency comparison results have shown that the three-step-stress designs we have obtained with both an optimal middle stress level and two optimal stress changing times are more efficient.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.654
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.115 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207