A bilateral comparison of spectral responsivity measurements in the spectral range 250 nm to 1800 nm between the NIST (USA) and the NRC (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This intercomparison of spectral responsivity between the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States and the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada was carried out to test the level of agreement between the two laboratories for routine detector calibrations and also to support the uncertainties quoted by NIST and NRC in appendix C of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) drawn up by the International Committee of Weights and Measures (CIPM). The comparison was carried out in two stages: 250 nm to 1100 nm using three silicon (Si) photodiodes, then 700 nm to 1800 nm using two germanium (Ge) and two indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) detectors. This paper describes briefly the derivation of the spectral responsivity scales, measurement procedures and apparatus used for each laboratory. The results of the intercomparison are presented. In the spectral ranges from 250 nm to 1000 nm for silicon and 750 nm to 1700 nm for germanium and InGaAs, the agreement between the two laboratories is well within the combined uncertainties. In particular, in the 450 nm to 1000 nm spectral range, the agreement is better than ±0.2%. In the 900 nm to 1600 nm spectral range, the agreement is typically ±0.5%. Consequently, the results of this intercomparison are shown to support the uncertainties claimed by NIST and NRC in their routine calibrations, and in their appendix C entries of the 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 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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".