MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770497974 · doi:10.1088/1681-7575/aa9a7e

A comparison of future realizations of the kilogram

2017· article· en· W2770497974 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKilogramPlanck constantRealization (probability)Constant (computer programming)MathematicsValue (mathematics)PhysicsComputer scienceBody weightStatisticsMedicineQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The definition of the kilogram in the International System of Units (SI) is expected to be revised in 2018. The present definition of the kilogram, the mass of the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK), adopted in 1889, would then be replaced by a definition based on a fixed numerical value of the Planck constant. The Consultative Committee for Mass and Related Quantities has requested that, as one of the essential steps before the redefinition, a comparison of kilogram realizations based on future realization methods, Kibble 9 balances and x-ray crystal density (XRCD) experiments, be organized. This comparison was carried out during 2016 in the form of a ‘Pilot Study’. One aim of the study was to determine the uniformity of mass dissemination after the redefinition by comparing mass calibrations based on different future realization experiments. Another aim was to test the continuity of the mass unit across the redefinition by comparing mass calibrations based on Kibble balances and XRCD experiments with those based on the IPK. This paper describes the organization of the comparison and presents its results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.485
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.055 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it