A summary of the Planck constant determinations using the NRC Kibble balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a summary of the Planck constant determinations using the NRC watt balance, now referred to as the NRC Kibble balance. The summary includes a reanalysis of the four determinations performed in late 2013, as well as three new determinations performed in 2016. We also present a number of improvements and modifications to the experiment resulting in lower noise and an improved uncertainty analysis. As well, we present a systematic error that had been previously unrecognized and we have quantified its correction. The seven determinations, using three different nominal masses and two different materials, are reanalysed in a manner consistent with that used by the CODATA Task Group on Fundamental Constants (TGFC) and includes a comprehensive assessment of correlations. The result is a Planck constant of 6.626 070 133(60) × 10 −34 Js and an inferred value of the Avogadro constant of 6.022 140 772(55) × 10 23 mol −1 . These fractional uncertainties of less than 10 −8 are the smallest published to date.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
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".