Maintenance policy selection using fuzzy failure modes and effective analysis and key performance indicators
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 policy selection (MPS) plays an important role in determining a proper maintenance strategy based on the real equipment condition. This study is intended to address the concept of MPS proposing an approach to improve current maintenance selection methods. Further, an integrated three-step model is introduced for MPS using fuzzy failure mode and effects analysis (FFMEA) and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP). In the first step, a combination of FFMEA and FAHP are applied to calculate the risk of equipment. For the risk priority number computation, three dimensions including severity, occurrence, and detection and their identified sub-dimensions are weighted by three domain experts. The second step is aimed at evaluation of all criteria that crucially affect MPS where four key performance indicators weighted by AHP are defined for equipment criticality assessment. Finally, a novel fuzzy approach is proposed to choose a proper maintenance strategy for each facility according to RPN and criticality scores. A case study is conducted to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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