MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999236449 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2020.2966913

Assessment of Spare Parts for System Components Using a Markov Model

2020· article· en· W2999236449 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpare partReliability engineeringMarkov chainComputer scienceMarkov modelComponent (thermodynamics)Markov processEngineeringMathematicsOperations managementStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a simple and practical reliability model based on a stationary Markov process for assessing the number of spare parts required for a group of bundles of similar component parts. The proposed model accounts for a number of factors that affect the number of spare parts. The factors include the number of bundles, bundle size, bundle failure rate, time required to repair the failed part or to acquire a new spare part, time needed to install the spare part and any redundancy in the bundle. In addition, the proposed model is capable of handling bundles of different sizes. Two performance criteria namely the group availability criterion and the system total minimum cost criterion can be used in the spare part assessment. The purpose of this paper is to present the new reliability model and to compare its results with other existing probability models.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.195 · 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