Precision and Equivalence of Automatic and Manual Flash Point Apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.020 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".