Update of the BIPM comparison BIPM.RI(II)-K1.Co-60 of activity measurements of the radionuclide <sup>60</sup>Co to include the 2011 result of the CNEA (Argentina), the 2012 results of the BARC (India) and the NRC (Canada), and the 2014 result of the NIM (China)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2010, four national metrology institutes (NMI) have each submitted a sample of known activity of 60 Co to the International Reference System (SIR) for activity comparison at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), with comparison identifier BIPM.RI(II)-K1.Co-60. The values of the activity submitted were between about 175 kBq and 1600 kBq. The primary standardization results for the CNEA, Argentina and the BARC, India replace their earlier result of 2003 and 2001, respectively. There are now seventeen results in the BIPM.RI(II)-K1.Co-60 comparison. The key comparison reference value (KCRV) has been updated using the power-moderated weighted mean. The degrees of equivalence between each equivalent activity measured in the SIR and the KCRV have been calculated and the results are given in the form of a table. A graphical presentation is also given. 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 CCRI, 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 | 0.021 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.048 |
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".