Report on acceleration comparison SIM.AUV.V-K1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first regional key comparison in vibration conducted under the auspices of the Inter American System of Metrology (SIM) was begun in 1996. The comparison was registered with the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) through the Consultative Committee for Acoustics, Ultrasound and Vibration (CCAUV) under the key comparison designation of SIM.AUV.V K1. The national measurement institutes (NMIs) of five countries participating in SIM performed and reported calibrations of one back-to-back and two single-ended accelerometers for this comparison during the time period of 1997 to 1999. The participants in the comparison were: Argentina (INTI), Brazil (INMETRO), Canada (NRC), Mexico (CENAM) and the United States (NIST). Reference Values (RVs) were established for the SIM.AUV.V-K1 comparison using maximum likelihood consensus estimation applied to the summary values of charge sensitivity with the nominal numbers of repeat measurements reported by the participating NMIs. Degrees of equivalence between the results reported by the NMIs and the RVs as well as pairwise degrees of equivalence between the results reported by the NMIs were computed using the uncertainties associated with the results reported by the NMIs and those of the RVs as appropriate. Transformation values were found in order to link the results of SIM.AUV.V-K1 with those of the first international key comparison in vibration conducted under the auspices of the CCAUV during 1999 to 2001 (CCAUV.V-K1). The degrees of equivalence between the NMIs participating in SIM.AUV.V-K1 and those participating in CCAUV.V-K1 were established using linkage values computed from the transformation values. 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 CCAUV, according to the provisions of the CIPM 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 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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".