MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016663783 · doi:10.1088/0026-1394/50/1a/02003

Final report on the key comparison CCPR-K5: Spectral diffuse reflectance

2013· article· en· W2016663783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María E. Nadal, K. L. Eckerle, Edward A. Early, Yoshi Ohno

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNISTMetrologyReflectivityChinaGeographyLibrary scienceEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyPhysicsComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CCPR K5 key comparison on spectral diffuse reflectance was carried out in the framework of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement, by 13 national metrology institutes (MMIs) as participants. The participants were CSIR-NML (South Africa), HUT (Finland), IFA-CSIC (Spain), KRISS (Republic of Korea), MSL (New Zealand), NIM (China), NIST (United States of America), NMIJ (Japan), NPL (United Kingdom), NRC (Canada), OMH (Hungary), PTB (Germany) and VNIIOFI (Russia Federation). NIST (USA) piloted the comparison. The aim of this comparison was to check the agreement of measurement of the spectral diffuse reflectance among participants, using the measurement geometry of d /0 or 0/ d in the wavelength range of 360 nm to 820 nm at 20 nm increment. The comparison was a star type comparison with the samples provided by the pilot laboratory and with the measurement sequence: Pilot–Participant–Pilot. Spectralon and matte white ceramic tiles were used as the transfer standards. Each participant received three of each type of sample and at least one sample of each type was measured three times on three separate days, and the other two samples were measured once. The report presents the description of the measurement facilities, procedures and uncertainties of all the participants as well as the results of the comparison. Measurement results from the participants and their associated uncertainties were analyzed in accordance with the Guidelines for CCPR Key Comparison Report Preparation, using weighted mean with cut-off. For the calculation of the Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV), as agreed by the participants, the data of both samples were used for the 460 nm to 820 nm region and only the data of the Spectralon samples were used in the spectral region of 360 nm to 440 nm. The unilateral degrees of equivalence (DoE) calculated for each participant are mostly consistent within the uncertainty ( k = 2) of the DoE. This international comparison of spectral diffuse reflectance shows overall good agreement among all participants. 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 (CIPM 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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.014

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetrologiaSame topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207