The Two-Parameter Odd Lindley Weibull Lifetime Model with Properties and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we study the two-parameter Odd Lindley Weibull lifetime model. This distribution is motivated by the wide use of the Weibull model in many applied areas and also for the fact that this new generalization provides more flexibility to analyze real data. The Odd Lindley Weibull density function can be written as a linear combination of the exponentiated Weibull densities. We derive explicit expressions for the ordinary and incomplete moments, moments of the (reversed) residual life, generating functions and order statistics. We discuss the maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameters. We assess the performance of the maximum likelihood estimators in terms of biases, variances, mean squared of errors by means of a simulation study. The usefulness of the new model is illustrated by means of two real data sets. The new model provides consistently better fits than other competitive models for these data sets. The Odd Lindley Weibull lifetime model is much better than \ Weibull, exponential Weibull, Kumaraswamy Weibull, beta Weibull, and the three parameters odd lindly Weibull with three parameters models so the Odd Lindley Weibull model is a good alternative to these models in modeling glass fibres data as well as the Odd Lindley Weibull model is much better than the Weibull, Lindley Weibull transmuted complementary Weibull geometric and beta Weibull models so it is a good alternative to these models in modeling time-to-failure data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".