MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095837028 · doi:10.1088/0026-1394/57/1a/07030

Report on the CCM key comparison of kilogram realizations CCM.M-K8.2019

2020· article· en· W3095837028 on OpenAlexaff
M Stöck, Pedro Conceição, H. Fang, Franck Bielsa, A. Kiss, Lars Holme Nielsen, D Kim, Man-Soo Kim, K -C Lee, S Lee, Myung Won Seo, Z Li, J Wang, Jinxin Xu, Dapeng Wu, Yunfeng Lu, Z Zhang, Qing He, D. Haddad, Stephan Schlamminger, David B. Newell, Edward Mulhern, Patrick J. Abbott, Zeina J. Kubarych, Naoki Kuramoto, Shigeki Mizushima, L Zhang, Kazuaki Fujita, Stuart Davidson, R G Green, J. O. Liard, Nathan F. Murnaghan, C A Sánchez, Barry Wood, H. Bettin, Michael Borys, M Mecke, Arnold Nicolaus, A. Peter, Matthias Müller, Frank Scholz, A Schofeld

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKilogramPlanck constantStandard uncertaintyInternational System of UnitsMutual recognitionNISTRealization (probability)Joule (programming language)MetrologyPhysicsPrimary standardNuclear engineeringMathematicsNuclear physicsMeasurement uncertaintyComputer scienceStatisticsCalibrationEngineeringBody weightQuantum mechanicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes the first CCM key comparison of realizations of the kilogram definition based on the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant, which came into force on 20 May 2019. The objectives were to determine the level of agreement between realizations of the kilogram using Kibble and joule balances and the X-ray crystal density (XRCD) method and to provide input for the calculation of the first "consensus value" of the kilogram. The consensus value will serve as the basis for an internationally coordinated dissemination of the kilogram which will continue until sufficient agreement between realization experiments has been achieved. The comparison was organized by the BIPM and had seven participants. The BIPM, KRISS, NIST and NRC operated Kibble balances, the NIM used a joule balance and the NMIJ and the PTB participated using 28 Si spheres, the masses of which were determined with the XRCD method. These realization methods were used to calibrate 1 kg mass standards under vacuum. The standards were sent (in air) to the BIPM where they were compared under vacuum with each other and with BIPM Pt-Ir working standards. The latter were calibrated (in air) traceable to the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK), the mass of which served as the definition of the kilogram until 20 May 2019. The results of the weighings at the BIPM together with the measurement results communicated by the participants allowed comparison of the values attributed to mass standards of 1 kg using the participating realization experiments. The level of agreement between mass determinations with the realization experiments and the BIPM as-maintained mass unit, traceable to the Planck constant through the mass of the International Prototype of the Kilogram can also be deduced. 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 CCM, 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.022

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 head0.495
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.029 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetrologiaSame topicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationFrench-language works237,207