MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6939510857 · doi:10.60692/3j6yx-k0861

Stress-strength reliability under partially accelerated life testing using Weibull model

2023· article· en· W6939510857 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeibull distributionEstimatorRandom variableExponential distributionReliability (semiconductor)Exponential functionConstant (computer programming)Accelerated life testingWeibull modulus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reliability of a system is the probability that its strength exceeds its stress. This reliability is called as the stress-strength reliability. The inferences of the stress-strength reliability R=P(X>Y), when: (1) the strength (X) and stress (Y) are independent random variables follow one-parameter exponential distributions; and (2) the strength variable is subjected to the step-stress partially accelerated life test (SSPALT) are discussed recently. Exponential distribution has limitation to describe the strength and stress due to its constant failure rate. In this paper, we consider the estimate of R, when: (1) X and Y are independent random variables that follow two-parameter Weibull distributions; and (2) the strength variable X is subjected to the SSPALT. The maximum likelihood estimator of R and its asymptotic distribution are not obtained analytically and therefore the asymptotic confidence interval of R is discussed. A real data set is analyzed using the proposed model for illustrative and comparison purposes. Based on the numerical results, we would conclude that the exponential distribution is rejected to fit the strength and stress, at any significant level that is greater than or equal to 2.58%, against the Weibull model.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.360
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.001 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207