MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174572705 · doi:10.18280/mmep.080319

Different Estimation Methods of the Stress-Strength Reliability Restricted Exponentiated Lomax Distribution

2021· article· en· W3174572705 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLomax distributionMean squared errorReliability (semiconductor)MathematicsStatisticsComponent (thermodynamics)MATLABApplied mathematicsMaximum likelihoodComputer sciencePower (physics)Thermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lomax distribution, a large-scale probabilistic distribution used in industry, economics, actuarial science, queue theory, and Internet traffic modeling, is the most important distribution in reliability theory. In this paper estimating the reliability of Restricted exponentiated Lomax distribution in two cases, when one component X strength and Y stress R=P(Y<X), and when system content two component series strength, Y stress by using different estimation method. such as maximum likelihood, least square and shrinkage methods. A comparison between the outcomes results of the applied methods has been carried out based on mean square error (MSE) to investigate the best method and the obtained results have been displayed via MATLAB software package.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.265 · 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