SIM.T-K9.1: Canada/Peru bilateral comparison of standard platinum resistance thermometers from 0.01 °C to 419.527 °C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Consultative Committee for Thermometry has organized Key Comparison 9 (CCT-K9) as an updated replacement for CCT-K3. A comparison of the fixed-point temperature standards of Peru with those of Canada was carried out following a protocol that closely resembles CCT-K9. The comparison was limited to the fixed points of tin and zinc, with NRC the pilot laboratory and the eventual link to CCT-K9 (currently, CCT-K9 remains a work in progress). The comparison protocol required INDECOPI to select, characterize, and transport (i.e. hand carry) the SPRTs to NRC. Following the measurements at NRC, the SPRTs were returned and re-measured at INDECOPI to close the loop and assess any changes that occurred in the SPRTs over the course of the measurements. The following degrees of equivalence, D, and expanded uncertainties, U (k = 2), were obtained via this comparison. T / °C D INDECOPI / mK U / mK 419.527 1.58 4.6 231.928 -2.12 3.9 SIM.T-K9.1 has demonstrated the compatibility of the fixed points of INDECOPI with those maintained by NRC within the combined uncertainties, and therefore serves to verify the intended calibration and measurement capabilities envisioned for INDECOPI, Peru. The results can be linked to NMIs globally following CCT-K9, with NRC as the linking participant. 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 CCT, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.017 |
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".