Asset Management, Reliability and Prognostics Modeling Techniques
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
In recent years, reliability engineering has seen significant growth in data-driven modeling, mainly due to the democratization of sensing technologies, big data processing, and computing capabilities. It has also seen a paradigm shift, with Engineering of Asset Management (EAM) becoming widely accepted as a high-level framework to support corporate policies and strategies. The rapid evolution of research leads to the development of multiple research communities, making it difficult for the uninitiated to navigate the literature. Indeed, system reliability encompasses several research subfields that focus on maximizing the life cycle of assets, including Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Safety (RAMS), Prognostics and Health Management (PHM), and Engineering of Asset Management. This article proposes a review of these concepts with the aim of identifying the different scientific communities, what differentiates them, and what connects them. It also addresses RAMS and PHM modeling techniques and highlights the significance of these disciplines in ensuring the functioning of complex systems. In summary, this article aims to clarify the interrelationship between the topics of reliability engineering, to simplify the search and selection for modeling methods.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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