Quantifying the calibration uncertainty attributable to thermocouple inhomogeneity
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
Inhomogeneity in the Seebeck coefficient as a function of position along a thermocouple wire frequently dominates the uncertainty budgets of thermocouple calibration and use. The calibration process itself, simply through exposure to elevated temperatures for relatively modest times, generates both reversible and irreversible changes to the thermocouple that are a complex function of time, temperature, alloy composition, sheath structure, etc. We present data acquired using a salt bath at 250 °C to provide the step-function-like gradient that is our spatial probe of thermoelectric homogeneity. We show how the finite width of the step-function limits our ability to assess the "true" inhomogeneity of the thermocouple, and explore how the inhomogeneity impacts the calibration uncertainty attainable with the various thermal sources used for the calibration of thermocouples (based on their characteristic temperature gradients).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it