MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988646523 · doi:10.1088/0026-1394/42/4/013

The triple point of xenon

2005· article· en· W1988646523 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Hill, A G Steele

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriple pointInternational Temperature Scale of 1990XenonMaterials scienceAtmospheric temperature rangeCalibrationMelting pointAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsPhysicsAtomic physicsChemistryChromatographyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The triple point of xenon is shown to be a suitable fixed point for incorporation into the next revision of the International Temperature Scale (ITS) as a means of reducing the non-uniqueness in the important 84 K to 273 K range. Isotopic effects, once thought to be a limiting factor, are shown to be negligible. Purity remains the overriding concern, but high-purity xenon gas is obtainable, giving a very flat plateau with a melting range within ±10 µK from 50% to 90% of the melted sample fraction. The triple point temperature of xenon is shown to be 161.405 96 K ± 0.32 mK ( k = 1) on the ITS-90. The propagated calibration uncertainty of the platinum resistance thermometers and the component attributed to the non-uniqueness of the ITS-90, as evidenced by the differences among the seven calibrated thermometers, dominate the overall uncertainty of the estimated triple point temperature. The xenon triple point itself is highly reproducible, with a standard deviation of 48 µK for the eight melts of this study and a total realization uncertainty of just 76 µK.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetrologiaSame topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207