Monitoring fuzzy linear quality profiles: A comparative study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality profiles representing the quality of a process or product as the functional relationship between one or more dependent variables and one or more explanatory variables are nowadays widely recognized in statistical process control (SPC) applications by both researchers and practitioners. On the other hand, in many real-world cases, evaluation of process or product characteristics is carried out with ambiguity or conducted using linguistic values. The theory of fuzzy sets provides an appropriate approach to deal with uncertainty due to ambiguity in human subjective evaluations or vagueness in linguistic variables. The purpose of this study is to introduce two novel methods based on fuzzy regression modeling for monitoring fuzzy linear profiles in phase II of SPC. To accomplish this, fuzzified Hoteling’s T2 statistic and fuzzy hypothesis testing are used. Moreover, a simulation study is used to compare the performance of the proposed methods compared with previous methods, based on the average run length (ARL) criterion in order to assess the detectability of charts with regard to the step shifts in profile parameters. Finally, the results of a real-world example in the tile and ceramic industry are 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it