MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uncertainty Evaluations on the Measurement of “Carbon” in the Research on Karst Carbon Sink Effect - A Case for Dissolved Inorganic Carbon

2013· article· en· W2049896728 on OpenAlexaff
Wen Yue Du, Jian Yu, Shixiao Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Sensors
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of General Surgeons
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterDissolved organic carbonCalibrationKarstPropagation of uncertaintyUncertainty analysisMeasurement uncertaintyCalibration curveCarbon fibersSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceObservational errorStatisticsMathematicsAlgorithmChemistryEnvironmental chemistryGeotechnical engineeringGeologyDetection limit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to set up an evaluation method for the uncertainty in determining dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in karst river basin by Non-dispersive Infrared (NDIR) absorption detection technique, the continuous propagation model of uncertainty is used to evaluating the uncertainties from DIC measurement in two typical karst groundwater samples. The main steps are as follows: to fit the calibration curve by means of double-error regression firstly; and then to quantify each uncertainty component in the evaluation process; lastly to obtain the synthetic uncertainty model for DIC determination results. Calculations through experimental results show that: (1) the main sources of measurement uncertainty derive from the sub-uncertainties of calibration solutions, calibration curve fitting and measurements process; (2) the lower the DIC content in groundwater samples, the greater the relative uncertainty of measurement results, and the sub-uncertainty from the fitting of calibration curve gives one major contribution to the total uncertainty.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and SensorsFrench-language works237,207