MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981222398 · doi:10.1109/tim.2013.2242638

Optical Lattice Clocks as Candidates for a Possible Redefinition of the SI Second

2013· article· en· W1981222398 on OpenAlexaff
Mikhail Gurov, J. J. McFerran, Bartłomiej Nagórny, Rinat Tyumenev, Zhenyu Xu, Yann Le Coq, Rodolphe Le Targat, P. Lemonde, Jérôme Lodewyck, S. Bize

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Frequency and Time Standards
Canadian institutionsCMC Microsystems (Canada)
FundersInstitut Francilien de Recherche sur les Atomes FroidsCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueConseil Régional, Île-de-France
KeywordsOptical latticeAtomic clockStrontiumAtom opticsLattice (music)Frequency standardCaesiumPhysicsFrequency domainComputer scienceOpticsElectronic engineeringComputational physicsEngineeringQuantum mechanicsNuclear physicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we review several characteristics of optical lattice clocks as candidates for a future redefinition of the International System of Units (SI) second using an atomic transition in the optical domain, focusing on experiments performed at SYRTE using one mercury (Hg) and two strontium (Sr) optical lattice clocks. Beyond the technical aspects such as the stability and systematic frequency-shift assessments of the clocks, practical aspects have to be considered, such as the careful determination of the optical frequency with respect to the cesium primary standard and the worldwide reproducibility of the clock frequency by local and remote clock comparisons.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicAdvanced Frequency and Time StandardsFrench-language works237,207