The Table of Standard Atomic Weights—An exercise in consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present Table of Standard Atomic Weights (TSAW) of the elements is perhaps one of the most familiar data sets in science. Unlike most parameters in physical science whose values and uncertainties are evaluated using the “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” (GUM), the majority of standard atomic‐weight values and their uncertainties are consensus values, not GUM‐evaluated values. The Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) regularly evaluates the literature for new isotopic‐abundance measurements that can lead to revised standard atomic‐weight values, A r °(E) for element E. The Commission strives to provide utmost clarity in products it disseminates, namely the TSAW and the Table of Isotopic Compositions of the Elements (TICE). In 2016, the Commission recognized that a guideline recommending the expression of uncertainty listed in parentheses following the standard atomic‐weight value, for example, A r °(Se) = 78.971(8), did not agree with the GUM, which suggests that this parenthetic notation be reserved to express standard uncertainty, not the expanded uncertainty used in the TSAW and TICE. In 2017, to eliminate this noncompliance with the GUM, a new format was adopted in which the uncertainty value is specified by the “±” symbol, for example, A r °( Se) = 78.971 ± 0.008. To clarify the definition of uncertainty, a new footnote has been added to the TSAW. This footnote emphasizes that an atomic‐weight uncertainty is a consensus (decisional) uncertainty. Not only has the Commission shielded users of the TSAW and TICE from unreliable measurements that appear in the literature as a result of unduly small uncertainties, but the aim of IUPAC has been fulfilled by which any scientist, taking any natural sample from commerce or research, can expect the sample atomic weight to lie within A r °(E) ± its uncertainty almost all of the time.
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 | 0.043 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.053 |
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".