Selecting maintenance strategy in a combined cycle power plant: An AHP model utilizing BOCR technique
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
Maintenance philosophies and their activities have always been a major concern in industry. So, every industrial complex needs a clear and comprehensive maintenance plan to keep its equipment reliable and available. In this study, we proposed an AHP model combined with the BOCR method to select the most reliable maintenance strategy for a combined cycle power plant (GTG-HRSG). Five well-known maintenance alternatives including root cause analysis, condition-based maintenance, reliability-centered maintenance, run-to-failure and preventive maintenance are chosen to be evaluated by several experts from various departments of operation, planning and maintenance via three priorities of economic, technical and operation and 30 sub criteria and controls. Then, five different BOCR synthesize methods have been utilized to rank maintenance alternatives. The final result shows that four out of five synthesize methods have ranked RCA as the top maintenance strategy and RCM as second. In one other method, the rank of these two strategies is vice versa.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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