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
In the past decades, machine learning techniques or algorithms, particularly, classifiers have been widely applied to various real-world applications such as PHM. In developing high-performance classifiers, or machine learning-based models, i.e. predictive model for PHM, the predictive model evaluation remains a challenge. Generic methods such as accuracy may not fully meet the needs of models evaluation for prognostic applications. This paper addresses this issue from the point of view of PHM systems. Generic methods are first reviewed while outlining their limitations or deficiencies with respect to PHM. Then, two approaches developed for evaluating predictive models are presented with emphasis on specificities and requirements of PHM. A case of real prognostic application is studies to demonstrate the usefulness of two proposed methods for predictive model evaluation. We argue that predictive models for PHM must be evaluated not only using generic methods, but also domain-oriented approaches in order to deploy the models in real-world applications.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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