Comparison of xenon triple point realizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is widely recognized that the Mercury triple point (MTP) being situated very close to the Water triple point (WTP) constitutes a weakness in the International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90), in addition to safety concerns related to the use and transportation of Mercury. As such, a substitution for a safer, high-quality fixed point about half way between the Argon and Water triple points would be highly desirable. Now, a direct comparison is described of a Xenon cell filled in 2005 by the National Research Council Canada (NRC) and a more recently produced cell of the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM). The present paper discusses the INRiM 2017 measurements on both the INRiM and NRC cells, with a follow-up measurement at NRC, and presents the difference between the two cells, (0.17 ± 0.08) mK with the uncertainties of each cell’s realization of the Xenon triple point (XeTP), 0.11 mK for the INRiM cell and 0.07 mK for the NRC cell ( k = 1). In addition, the effect of substituting Mercury with Xenon on Type 1 non-uniqueness (‘SRI’, subrange inconsistency), Type 3 non-uniqueness (‘NU3’, cSPRT variability) and propagation of fixed point realization uncertainty is shown and discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".