Final report on CCPR K1-a: Spectral irradiance from 250 nm to 2500 nm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CCPR K1-a key comparison of spectral irradiance (from 250 nm to 2500 nm) was carried out to meet the requirements of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement by 13 participating national metrology institutes (NMIs). Because of the fragile nature of the tungsten halogen lamps used as comparison artefacts, the comparison was arranged as a star comparison with three lamps per participant. NPL (United Kingdom) piloted the comparison and, by measuring all lamps, provided a link between participants' measurements. The other participants were BNM–INM (France), CENAM (Mexico), CSIRO (Australia), HUT (Finland), IFA–CSIC (Spain), MSL–IRL (New Zealand), NIM (China), NIST (United States of America), NMIJ (Japan), NRC (Canada), PTB (Germany) and VNIIOFI (Russian Federation). Before the analysis was completed and the results known, the pilot discussed with each participant which lamp measurements should be included as representative of their comparison. As a consequence of this check, at least one measurement was excluded from one third of the lamps because of changes due to transportations. The comparison thus highlighted the difficulty regarding the availability of suitable transfer standards for the dissemination of spectral irradiance. The use of multiple lamps and multiple measurements ensured sufficient redundancy that all participants were adequately represented. In addition, during this pre-draft A phase all participants had the opportunity to review the uncertainty budgets and methods of all other participants. This new process helped to ensure that all submitted results and their associated uncertainties were evaluated in a consistent manner. The comparison was analysed using a model-based method which regarded each lamp as having a stable spectral irradiance and the measurements made by an NMI as systematically influenced by a factor that applies to all that NMI's measurements. The aim of the analysis was to estimate the systematic factor for each NMI. Across the spectral region (250 nm to 2500 nm) there were 44 wavelengths at which a comparison was made. These were treated entirely independently and thus the report describes 44 comparisons. For wavelengths from 250 nm to 800 nm (apart from 300 nm) all participants had unilateral degrees of equivalence (DoEs) with values consistent with their uncertainties for a coverage level k = 2. At all other wavelengths (apart from 1400 nm) all participants achieved consistency at the k = 4 level for the unilateral DoEs and the vast majority within k = 3. The results are a significant improvement over those of the previous comparison in 1990, especially considering that the declared uncertainties of most participants have been substantially improved over the intervening decade. These results are evidence of the value of the effort devoted to the development of improved spectral scales (and of the evaluation of their uncertainty) by many NMIs in recent years. Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCPR, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.013 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".