MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991986154 · doi:10.1520/jte12291j

Precision and Equivalence of Automatic and Manual Flash Point Apparatus

2002· article· en· W1991986154 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Testing and Evaluation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal and Kinetic Analysis
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlash pointFlash (photography)Point (geometry)ReproducibilityFlammable liquidRepeatabilityConfidence intervalComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringChemistryWaste managementOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The flash point of a liquid material is used to classify whether the material is flammable or combustible. Historically, flash point determination has been done using manual flash point apparatus. However, the advent of automatic flash point apparatus, especially in the petroleum and related industries, brought about improved testing efficiency such that manual flash point determination is becoming the less preferred way of determining flash point. Three ASTM standard test methods, namely, D 56 “Flash Point by Tag Closed Cup Tester,” D 92 “Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup,” and D 93 “Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Testers” are the most common test methods used in the various specifications and regulatory requirements for determining the flash point of materials. Three interlaboratory studies were conducted in 1991 to determine new precision values for the ASTM D 56, D 92, and D 93 flash point test methods, and to determine if the flash points obtained by the automatic apparatus are statistically equivalent to the flash points obtained by the manual apparatus in each of these three standard test methods. The pooled repeatability at a 95% confidence level for the D 56 flash point was found to be 1.1°C (manual) and 1.2°C (automatic) for flash points below 60°C; and 1.4°C (manual) and 1.6°C (automatic) for flash points at or above 60°C. The pooled reproducibility for D 56 at a 95% confidence level was found to be 4.1°C (manual) and 4.3°C (automatic) for flash points below 60°C; and 5.8°C (manual) and 5.1°C (automatic) for flash points at or above 60°C. For D 92, a repeatability at a 95% confidence level of 4°C (manual) and 8°C (automatic); and a reproducibility at a 95% confidence level of 13°C (manual) and 18°C (automatic), were obtained. The precision for D 93 was shown to be dependent on the flash point value, with a repeatability at a 95% confidence level of 0.032 X °C (manual) and 0.035 X °C (automatic), and a reproducibility at a 95% confidence level of 0.073 X °C (manual) and 0.078 X °C (automatic). Standard statistical evaluation tests were performed on the data for the three test methods. Essentially, no statistically significant differences were found between automatic and manual D 56, automatic and manual D 92, and automatic and manual D 93 flash point results. Thus, the interlaboratory studies of the three flash point test methods indicated that automatic flash point results are equivalent to manual flash point results.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.248 · 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