MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921637601 · doi:10.33889/ijmems.2016.1.3-013

Reliability Comparative Evaluation of Active Redundancy vs. Standby Redundancy

2016· article· en· W2921637601 on OpenAlexaff
James Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mathematical Engineering and Management Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Mean time between failuresReliability engineeringComputer scienceTriple modular redundancyEngineeringFailure rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Redundancy is a commonly applied reliability improvement technique to enhance the system reliability and availability of safety critical systems, or operational impact systems in the railroad and mass transit industry. In this paper, two very basic but different types of parallel redundancy, namely active redundancy and standby redundancy are introduced and studied according to the mechanism structure built in a system. The pros and cons of the active redundancy and standby redundancy are also discussed. The Markov model technique is utilized to illustrate the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) calculation for the active and standby redundancy for the purpose of reliability evaluation. The comparison is also undertaken for the active redundancy versus standby redundancy from a reliability point of view.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mathematical Engineering and Management SciencesSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207