MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7032902995

Optimal and Robust Designs of Step-stress Accelerated Life Testing Experiments for Proportional Hazards Models

2015· other· en· W7032902995 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBrock University
KeywordsNucleofectionTSG101Gestational periodHyporeflexiaDiafiltrationDysgeusiaArticular cartilage damageFusible alloy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accelerated life testing (ALT) is widely used to obtain reliability information about a product within a limited time frame. The Cox s proportional hazards (PH) model is often utilized for reliability prediction. My master thesis research focuses on designing accelerated life testing experiments for reliability estimation. We consider multiple step-stress ALT plans with censoring. The optimal stress levels and times of changing the stress levels are investigated. We discuss the optimal designs under three optimality criteria. They are D-, A- and Q-optimal designs. We note that the classical designs are optimal only if the model assumed is correct. Due to the nature of prediction made from ALT experimental data, attained under the stress levels higher than the normal condition, extrapolation is encountered. In such case, the assumed model cannot be tested. Therefore, for possible imprecision in the assumed PH model, the method of construction for robust designs is also explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.029 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207