Mass fraction assignment of folic acid in a high purity material
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
The comparison required the assignment of the mass fraction of folic acid present as the main component in the comparison sample. Performance in the comparison is representative of a laboratory's measurement capability for the purity assignment of organic compounds of medium structural complexity [molecular weight range 300–500] and high polarity ( pK OW < −2). Methods used by the eighteen participating NMIs or DIs were based on a mass balance (summation of impurities) or qNMR approach, or the combination of data obtained using both methods. The qNMR results tended to give slightly lower values for the content of folic acid, albeit with larger associated uncertainties, compared with the results obtained by mass balance procedures. Possible reasons for this divergence are discussed in the report, without reaching a definitive conclusion as to their origin. The comparison demonstrates that for a structurally complex polar organic compound containing a high water content and presenting a number of additional analytical challenges, the assignment of the mass fraction content property value of the main component can reasonably be achieved with an associated relative standard uncertainty in the assigned value of 0.5% Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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