International comparison of guarded hot plate apparatus using national and regional reference materials
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
As part of an international comparison of guarded-hot-plate apparatus, thermal conductivity measurements of four different thermal insulation materials are presented. The test program evaluates one regional and three national reference materials using a two-part experimental plan: 1) five independent replicate measurements taken at. a fixed temperature (297.1 5 K); and, single- point measurements taken at multiple temperatures (280 K to 320 K). The analysis of the replicate data provides rankings for the primary factors -laboratory and material. A major finding of the replicate analysis is the existence of a laboratory-material interaction. In other words, there are laboratory-to-laboratory changes in both location and variation, which change from material to material. Further analyses attempt to determine the sources (i.e., underlying causes) for the variation in the replicate data. Secondary laboratory factors are investigated both individually following a cause-and-effect chart, and collectively using graphical analysis, correlation analysis and analysis of variance. The major finding of the multi-temperature (280 K to 320 K) analysis confirms and supports the laboratory-material interaction as found in the fixed-temperature replicate data analysis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.019 | 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