The comparability of the determination of the molar mass of silicon highly enriched in <sup>28</sup> Si: results of the CCQM-P160 interlaboratory comparison and additional external measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An international comparison study on the accurate determination of the molar mass M (Si) of silicon artificially enriched in 28 Si ( x ( 28 Si) > 0.9999 mol mol −1 ) has been completed. The measurements were part of the high level CCQM-P160 pilot study assessing the ability of National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and Designated Institutes (DIs) to make such measurements at the lowest possible levels of measurement uncertainty and to identify possible difficulties when measuring this kind of sample. This study supports the molar mass measurements critical to disseminating the silicon route to realizing the new definitions for the kilogram and the mole. Measurements were also made by one external research institute and an external company. The different institutes were free to choose their experimental (mass spectrometric) set-ups and equipment, thereby enabling also the comparison of different techniques. The investigated material was a chemically pure, polycrystalline silicon material. The subsequent modified single crystalline secondary product of this material was intended for the production of silicon which was used for two additional spheres in the context of the redetermination of the Avogadro constant N A , required for the revision of the International System of Units (SI) via fundamental constants which came into force from May 2019. The CCQM pilot study was organized by Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). Aqueous silicon solutions were shipped to all participating institutions. The data analysis as well as the uncertainty modelling and calculation of the results was predefined. The participants were provided with an uncertainty budget as a GUM Workbench ® file as well as a free software license for the duration of the comparison. The agreement of the values of the molar mass ( M (Si) = 27.976 942 577 g mol −1 ) was excellent with ten out of 11 results reported within the range of relative uncertainty of 1 × 10 −8 required for the revision of the SI.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".