Ninth annual report on federal agency use of voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Table of ContentsSome Federal agencies leverage their partnerships with the private sector in both the standards and conformity assessment realms to address national policy and technology needs.Partnership vehicles include standards panels and joint development of standards strategies and roadmaps in areas ranging from homeland security to health information. -Overview and ScopeThis report fulfills the reporting requirements of Section 12 of the NTTAA and of OMB Circular A-119.It describes Federal agency activities related to the use of private sector standards in regulation, procurement and conformity assessment during FY 2005.In close consultation with OMB, NIST formulates this report based on inputs submitted to NIST by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the requirements of OMB Circular A-119.Section 12 of the Act, enacted on March 7, 1996, directs Federal government agencies to achieve two main goals.First, the Federal government must achieve greater reliance on voluntary consensus standards developed by the private sector.Second, the Federal government must decrease its dependence on government-unique standards developed by and for the Federal government.The NTTAA also directs Federal agency personnel to participate in the activities of voluntary consensus standards developing organizations (SDOs) so that the SDOs remain familiar with the Federal government's position on standards and consider that position in their final standards documents.This provision is intended to help ensure that standards produced in the private sector will be more appropriate, and cost effective, for use by Federal agencies.While these policies have been a part of the Circular for many years, the enactment of the NTTAA served to codify these policies into statute, thereby reinforcing them.Table 3.1 -Government-unique Standards Used in Lieu of Voluntary Consensus Standards Agency
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 | 0.051 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".