Final Report on CIPM key comparison of 1 kg standards in stainless steel (CCM.M-K1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report a key comparison of 1 kg stainless steel mass standards carried out between February 1995 and October 1997. Organized within the Consultative Committee for Mass and Related Quantities (CCM), the participants included 14 national metrology institutes (NMIs) and the BIPM, with the BIPM serving as pilot laboratory. The 14 NMIs were divided into two groups, each of which determined the mass of two cylindrical travelling standards. In preliminary measurements, the pilot laboratory had determined the important physical properties of the four travelling standards and had monitored their mass stability over time. Measurements within the two groups then proceeded in parallel, with the four travelling standards returning several times to the pilot laboratory in order to monitor their stability. One of the present authors (MG) shows in appendix 3 how to treat comparisons among participants in different 'loops'. As shown in appendix 4, the mass reported by each NMI was derived indirectly from the mass of its national prototype, introducing a significant correction for air buoyancy during this step. The median of all results was taken to be the reference value for this key comparison. The degrees of equivalence are shown in tables 3–5 and summarized graphically in figure 7. 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 CCM, according to the provisions of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (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 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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.018 |
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".