Application of Statistical Monitoring Using Autocorrelated Data and With the Influence of Multicollinearity in a Steel Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate a practical application of control charts in an industrial process that has data auto-correlated with each other. Although the control charts created by Walter A. Shewhart are very effective in monitoring processes, there are very important statistical assumptions for Shewhart's control charts to be applied correctly. Choosing the correct Control Chart is essential for managers to be able to make coherent decisions within companies. With this study, it was possible to demonstrate that the original data collected in the process, which at first appeared to have many special causes of variation, was actually a stable process (no anomalies present). However, this finding required the use of autoregressive models, multivariate statistics, autocorrelation and normality tests, multicollinearity analysis and the use of the EWMA control chart. It was concluded that it is of fundamental importance to choose the appropriate control chart for monitoring industrial processes, to ensure that changes in processes do not incorporate non-existent variations and do not cause an increase in the number of defective products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".