Traceable measurements and calibration: a primer on uncertainty analysis
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
Abstract Describing the quality of measurements is necessary to understand the level of confidence in any observation. Accuracy, precision, trueness, repeatability, reproducibility, and uncertainty are all used to describe quality of measurement, but the terms are inconsistently defined and measured and thus easily misunderstood. One purpose of quality parameters is for the comparison of observations, but when dissimilar methods for estimating quality terms are utilized, a comparison is misrepresented. A standardized approach to estimating uncertainty provides a basis for meeting measurement requirements and providing a level of confidence for observations. Here, we show the approach used by the National Ecological Observatory Network to estimate uncertainty of the calibration processes and measurements illustrated with an example of uncertainty assessment on a temperature sensor. Detailing the approach for uncertainty assessment provides the transparency necessary for network science and allows for the approach to be adopted in the scientific community. Reporting uncertainty with all measurements needs to become consistent and commonplace across disciplines.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.180 | 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 it