The International Temperature Scale: Past, Present, and Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its inception in 1927, the International Temperature Scale (ITS) has changed to meet the needs of the time. The ITS protocol specifies phase transitions with assigned temperatures (the defining fixed points), defining instruments (thermometers), and interpolating (or extrapolating) equations. Since 1927, the selection of fixed points and their assigned temperatures have changed, defining instruments have been added and deleted, and the equations have become more complex. Since its introduction in 1990, the ITS-90 has served its user community well. However, its departure from thermodynamic temperature is more than is desirable for the most demanding applications. One approach is to continue making measurements on the ITS-90 (T₉₀), and then correct the temperatures for better accord with thermodynamic temperature (T) using the Consultative Committee for Thermometry's best estimates of (T – T₉₀). Alternatively, these shortcomings can be addressed by an evolutionary change that maintains the familiar mathematical structure of the ITS-90, but updates the coefficients of the reference functions and the temperatures of the defining fixed points. The impact on embedded instrumentation is minimal – requiring only an updating of the coefficients of the reference functions and not a complete reworking of the mathematics.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".