MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008398518 · doi:10.1088/1361-6404/ab7830

Evaluating the uncertainty for a complex experiment: the case of the plasma potential measurement

2020· article· en· W3008398518 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

VenueEuropean Journal of Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPlasmaStatistical physicsTheoretical physicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A general method for the determination of the uncertainty of a physical quantity measured during an experiment is presented. This procedure is described step-by-step so it can be applied to any measurement and experiment available for undergraduate and graduate students, from the simplest to the most complex. The method is then applied to a classic measurement of plasma physics: the plasma potential determination using an emissive probe. This kind of experiment is routinely performed in plasma physics laboratories and may be realized by graduate students. The emissive probe diagnostic relies on a data analysis method called the inflection point. This method follows an indirect procedure on which the step-by-step uncertainty calculation strategy presented in the first part of the article is presented.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.630
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.178 · 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