Statistical inference of a series reliability system using shock models with Weibull distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we define a series system with non‐independent and non‐identical components using a shock model with sources of fatal shocks. Here, it is assumed that the shocks happen randomly and independently, following a Weibull distribution with various scale and shape parameters. A dependability model with unknown parameters is produced by this process. Making statistical conclusions about the model parameters is the main objective of this research. We apply the maximum likelihood and Bayes approaches to determine the model parameters' point and interval estimates. We shall demonstrate that no analytical solutions to the likelihood equations must be solved to obtain the parameters' maximum likelihood estimates. As a result, we will use the R program to approximate the parameter point and interval estimates. Additionally, we will use the bootstrap‐t and bootstrap‐p methods to approximate the confidence intervals. About the Bayesian approach, we presume that each model parameter is independent and follows a gamma prior distribution with a range of attached hyperparameter values. The model parameters' posterior distribution does not take a practical form. We are unable to derive the Bayes estimates in closed forms as a result. To solve this issue, we use the Gibbs sampler from the Metropolis‐Hasting algorithm based on the Markov chain Monte Carlo method to condense the posterior distribution. To demonstrate the relevance of this research, a real data set application is detailed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".