Final report of the CCEM-K2.2012 key comparison of resistance standards at 10 MΩ and 1 GΩ.
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
An international comparison of dc resistance at 10 MΩ and 1 GΩ was carried out under the framework of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) of the Comité Consultatif d'Électricité et Magnétisme (CCEM). The comparison was piloted by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) with the participation of 12 National Metrology Institutes (NMIs). Two 10 MΩ resistors (Measurements International, model 9331) and two 1 GΩ resistors (Measurements International, model 9331S) were used as travelling standards. Although the uncertainty at 10 MΩ was limited by the stability of the travelling standards, the comparison achieved a reduction in the uncertainties of the degrees of equivalence relative to the 2002 CCEM-K2 comparison, especially at 1 GΩ where the improvement was quite significant. 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 CCEM, 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) | 0.000 | 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