MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412178050 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-10164-1

Quality assurance through truncated life tests under the Lomax distribution

2025· article· en· W4412178050 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
FundersAl-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University
KeywordsQuality assuranceLomax distributionComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsOperations managementPareto distributionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sampling inspection plan is a valuable tool used across industries to ensure product quality, comply with regulatory standards, and maintain cost efficiency in quality control processes. To check for defects in the products during production, a batch of goods produced may be inspected through sampling to decide whether to accept or reject the entire batch based on the quality level of the sample. In this study we develop acceptance sampling plans based on truncated life tests utilizing the Lomax distribution. The study analyzes different parameters of the Lomax distribution to determine the minimum sample sizes necessary for evaluating the quality of lots or production processes. Additionally, we calculate the operating characteristic function values and establish the minimum ratio of the true mean life to the specified mean life of the product, taking into account the risks faced by both consumers and producers with our proposed sampling method. The effectiveness of these sampling plans is demonstrated through their application to real-world data, assessing their practical utility in quality evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.326 · 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