MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416885191 · doi:10.37665/ppfawbh25693

Life-Test Statistics for Small Sample Sizes

2008· article· W4416885191 on OpenAlexaff
T. Clifford

Bibliographic record

VenuePan Pacific Symposium · 2008
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample size determinationQuality (philosophy)Test (biology)Statistical hypothesis testingSample (material)Interpretation (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Accelerated life tests (usually thermal-cycle) are increasingly necessary in microelectronics development and marketing, but are troublesome and expensive. There is never enough time, and samples are typically rare and precious. The number of samples on test is known to be crucial, but important decisions must often be made based on testing only a few samples. This paper offers some insight into the quality of tiny-N statistics, as well as guidance on testing and decisions involving life-tests of few samples. Examples and case histories are offered for test planning as well as for interpretation of sales pitches. Be careful not to lead yourself expensively astray, and be skeptical of reported “data”, based on few samples.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePan Pacific SymposiumSame topicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure AnalysisFrench-language works237,207