MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399246352 · doi:10.1002/qre.3595

Reliability and maintainability estimation of a multi‐failure‐cause system under imperfect maintenance

2024· article· en· W4399246352 on OpenAlexaff
Fatemeh Safaei, Sharareh Taghipour

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality and Reliability Engineering International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaintainabilityReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)CovariateComputer scienceEstimationImperfectEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Estimating the reliability and maintainability (R & M) parameters is crucial in various industrial applications. It serves purposes such as evaluating system performance and safety, minimising the risk and cost of potential failures, and designing efficient maintenance strategies. This task becomes challenging for complex repairable systems, where failures can occur due to different causes and performance may be affected by various covariates (such as material, environment, and labour). Another challenge in R & M studies arises from the presence of censorship in failure times. Existing methodologies often fail to account for all the aforementioned aspects of system‐related data in R & M analysis. By incorporating valuable information from covariates and utilising data from censored failure times alongside complete failure data, the accuracy of R & M parameter estimation can be significantly improved. This paper develops reliability models for repairable systems with multiple failure causes in the presence of covariates. The system can also be subject to imperfect maintenance. The R & M parameters are then estimated by applying the Kijima Type I and II model's virtual age concept. The proposed technique is illustrated using two case studies on gas pipelines and aero‐engine systems. Through these case studies, we show that the proposed method not only provides more efficient estimates of the R & M parameters compared to the alternative approach, but it is also easier to apply and yields more straightforward interpretations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality and Reliability Engineering InternationalSame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207