MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416883853 · doi:10.37665/pplivqe67389

“Life-Testing …. Save Time and Money, Get Better Data”

2001· article· W4416883853 on OpenAlexaff
T. Clifford

Bibliographic record

VenuePan Pacific Symposium · 2001
Typearticle
Language
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Key (lock)Quality (philosophy)Sample (material)Statistical hypothesis testingStatistical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Life tests are a necessary evil, when qualifying new technology in demanding applications. Typically, samples are few, time is short, testing is very expensive, decisions are consequential, and you get only one chance. Statistical planning can be the key to optimum cost-benefit. Decisions on sample size, inspection frequency, test suspension, and analysis methods will determine the cost of the test as well as the quality of resulting metrics. This paper offers practical tools, correlations, and costed examples, to help you optimize your test plan, to get you the most confidence, and the most credible marketing report, for your test dollar

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.233 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePan Pacific SymposiumSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207