On the performance of coefficient of variation charts in the presence of measurement errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the literature, coefficient of variation control charts have been introduced under the assumption of no measurement errors. However, measurement errors always exist in practice, and they do affect the performance of control charts in the detection of an out‐of‐control situation. In this paper, we therefore study the performance of a coefficient of variation Shewhart‐type control chart (Shewhart‐CV chart) and also one‐sided coefficient of variation exponentially weighted moving average–type control charts (EWMA‐γ 2 charts) using a model with linear covariates. Moreover, we propose and study the performance of a two‐sided EWMA‐γ 2 chart using a model with linear covariates. Several figures and tables are provided and analyzed to evaluate the statistical performance of these control charts for different sources of measurement errors. The obtained results show that the precision and accuracy errors significantly affect the performance of both the Shewhart‐CV and EWMA‐γ 2 control charts. An example illustrating the use of this study is finally presented.
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 | 0.048 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".