MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208976819 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662383.v1

A Methodology for Maintenance Evaluation and Improvement of Repairable Systems in a Mine

2021· preprint· en· W3208976819 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Uthman Said

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPreventive maintenanceReliability engineeringPredictive maintenancePlanned maintenanceContext (archaeology)Corrective maintenanceProcess (computing)TruckOptimal maintenanceCondition-based maintenanceFunction (biology)Computer scienceMaintenance engineeringReliability (semiconductor)EngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Power (physics)Automotive engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, a maintenance evaluation and improvement methodology is presented, which makes use of maintenance data to determine failure characteristics of repairable systems and the effectiveness of maintenance policies being conducted on them. The objective is to provide a way in which maintenance data can be collected, organized, cleaned and formatted to provide information on component failures analytics, system availability and utilization so as to determine flaws in maintenance strategies. The methodology also provides context for the study of maintenance effectiveness, and synthesizes its importance within the grander scheme of maintenance optimization of repairable systems. We consider a repairable system whose failures follow a Non-Homogenous Poisson Process (NHPP) with the power law intensity function. The system is subject to corrective and multiple types of preventive maintenance. We assume the effects of different preventive maintenance on the system are not identical, and estimate the parameters of the failure process as well as the effects of preventive maintenance. Ultimately, the methodology serves to guide maintenance designers in measuring the effectiveness of current maintenance policies and providing granular analysis on current failure trends to arrive at data-driven options for maintenance improvement. The proposed methodology was applied to a real case study of four AC-powered dump trucks used at an underground mine in Sudbury, Canada.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207