Final Report on Key Comparison CCM.P-K7 in the range 10 MPa to 100 MPa of hydraulic gauge pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes a CCM key comparison of hydraulic pressure standards of nine national metrology institutes that was carried out in the period from November 2002 to June 2004 in order to determine their degrees of equivalence in the range 10 MPa to 100 MPa of the gauge pressure. The pilot laboratory was PTB. The primary pressure standards were pressure balances of different design equipped with piston-cylinder assemblies operated in free-deformation, controlled-clearance or re-entrant operation mode. The transfer standard was a pressure balance equipped with a piston-cylinder assembly and a mass set. The pressure-dependent effective areas of the transfer standard at specified pressures were reported by the participants and led to the reference values calculated as medians. All participants' results agree with the reference values and with each other within the expanded uncertainties calculated with a coverage factor 2, most of them even within their standard uncertainties. In addition, the results were analysed in terms of the zero-pressure effective area and the pressure distortion coefficient. Also for them agreement within expanded uncertainties ( k = 2) is observed. The results of the comparison demonstrate equivalence of the laboratory standards and support their measurement capability statements. 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 Mutual Recognition Arrangement (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 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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.152 | 0.059 |
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".