MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234186239 · doi:10.1002/9780470061572.eqr292

Process Capability Indices, Comparison of

2007· other· en· W4234186239 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Spiring

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability · 2007
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Process (computing)Variety (cybernetics)Process capabilityFunction (biology)Yield (engineering)Interpretation (philosophy)Quality (philosophy)Process capability indexManagement scienceStatisticsComputer scienceEconometricsMathematicsEngineeringEpistemologyWork in processArtificial intelligenceOperations managementBiologyPhilosophyThermodynamicsEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The most common process capability indices are examined from several perspectives. A brief historical review outlines recent developments from simple variability measures to today's more sophisticated indices. The behavior of the indices C pk , C pm , and C pmk is compared with C p for processes that are not necessarily centered at target, illustrating the relationships among the various indices. A weight function is presented that allows the functional form of a variety of indices to be examined. A discussion of process yield and the resulting interpretation from a quality loss perspective is presented and the differing philosophies represented by the competing indices are highlighted.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and ReliabilitySame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207