Final report on the Seventh International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (ICAG 2005)*
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), Sèvres, France, hosted the 7th International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (ICAG) and the associated Relative Gravity Campaign (RGC) from August to September 2005. ICAG 2005 was prepared and performed as a metrological pilot study, which aimed: (1) To determine the gravity comparison reference values; (2) To determine the offsets of the absolute gravimeters; and (3) As a pilot study to accumulate experience for the CIPM Key Comparisons. This document presents a complete and extensive review of the technical protocol and data processing procedures. The 1st ICAG–RGC comparison was held at the BIPM in 1980–1981 and since then meetings have been organized every 4 years. In this paper, we present an overview of how the meeting was organized, the conditions of BIPM gravimetric sites, technical specifications, data processing strategy and an analysis of the final results. This 7th ICAG final report supersedes all previously published reports. Readings were obtained from participating instruments, 19 absolute gravimeters and 15 relative gravimeters. Precise levelling measurements were carried out and all measurements were performed on the BIPM micro-gravity network which was specifically designed for the comparison.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it