SIM key comparison for luminous flux. SIM.PR-K4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In compliance with the established BIPM and CCPR policies and guidelines on comparisons, the SIM Photometry and Radiometry Working Group decided to conduct a key comparison on total luminous flux in order to provide an opportunity for its member National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) that did not participate in the CCPR-K4 comparison, to get a link to the reference value obtained for this quantity (the lumen) and to derive the corresponding degrees of equivalence. This SIM.PR-K4 was piloted by Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM), the NMI of Mexico and included the participation of five laboratories: CENAM (Mexico), INTI (Argentina), INMETRO (Brazil), NIST (USA, linking lab), and NRC (Canada, linking lab). The comparison, conducted in star type scheme, was run using three to four lamps per participant, and results are given in this report, including the unilateral degrees of equivalence. 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 CCPR, 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".