MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001537166 · doi:10.1002/qre.2623

Confidence limits for compliance testing using mixed acceptance criteria

2020· article· en· W3001537166 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pasan Manuranga Edirisinghe, Thomas Mathew, T. S. G. Peiris

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality and Reliability Engineering International · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MoratuwaNational Research Council Sri LankaFaculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Regina
KeywordsConfidence intervalStatisticsParametric statisticsLimit (mathematics)Sample (material)Acceptance testingMathematicsQuality (philosophy)EconometricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For manufactured items sold by weight or volume, this article considers mixed acceptance criteria that put limits on the sample mean or on an upper confidence limit based on the sample mean and on the number of individual sample units that are nonconforming. For a normally distributed quality characteristic of interest, this article develops lower confidence limits for the mixed acceptance criteria applying the concept of a generalized pivotal quantity and applying a bias‐corrected and accelerated parametric bootstrap. The accuracy of the confidence limits is assessed using estimated coverage probabilities, and the results are illustrated with an example.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.408
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.408
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.505
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.004 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality and Reliability Engineering InternationalSame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207