Verifying a dominant cause of output variation
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
Finding the dominant cause(s) of variation in process improvement projects is an important task. Before trying to reduce variation in the dominant cause or mitigate the effect of variation in the dominant cause to reduce output variation, it is strongly recommended that we verify we have identified the true (dominant) cause. This article is about how best to verify we have correctly identified a dominant cause, as the existing literature does not properly answer this question. Although it may seem that a randomized controlled experiment is sufficient for this purpose, we show that experimental studies alone cannot provide all the required information. An experiment identifies whether a suspect is a cause of variation; however, we also require additional information (i.e., from observational studies) to determine whether it is dominant and not just significant. This article lists some viable composite study designs, assesses their relative merits, and recommends proper sample sizes. We also investigate how to systematically conduct a verification study in the era of smart manufacturing. Moreover, we provide a tangible example to illustrate our proposed procedure.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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