MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399664877 · doi:10.1117/12.3020312

Cost-effective approach to quality assurance via failure modes and effects analysis for the development of GIRMOS for the Gemini North Telescope

2024· article· en· W4399664877 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Barnet, Suresh Sivanandam, Franics Frenzel, Scott Christie, Shawn Barbod, Ruben Diaz, Martin Tschimmel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Reliability engineeringTelescopeSystems engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessOperations managementAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gemini Infra-Red Multi-Object Spectrograph (GIRMOS) is a high-resolution integral-field spectroscope and imager being built by a consortium of Canadian universities and institutions, along with the International Gemini Observatory (Gemini) and the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI). The team needed a cost-effective way to bring a degree in Product and Quality Assurance to bear on instrument development, but without availability of a dedicated team. Advice and support from the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) Systems Engineering Team enabled GIRMOS to tailor and scale the TMT approach to fit within the available resources of a much smaller project. This Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method more easily allowed geographically distributed subsystem teams to work independently within an agreed-upon FMEA framework that rolled up into a System-level analysis. The TMT FMEA framework reduced the effort involved in all the follow-on work that used the same data set, namely sparing analysis, reliability and uptime analyses, and accelerated life testing.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207