Final report on SIM.L.K1.2007.1 bilateral comparison (length) 2018-2019: calibration of gauge blocks by optical interferometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Main text This bilateral SIM key comparison on calibration of gauge blocks by interferometry (SIM.L-K1.2007.1) was carried out between CENAM (México) and INTI (Argentina). Its scope is to support and maintain the claimed Calibration and Measurement Capability (CMC) by the participants, which regularly offer the service of gauge block calibration by optical interferometry. The comparison was held from first half of 2018 to second half of 2019, and involved the measurement of eleven steel gauge blocks-eight in the range of short gauge block and three in the range of long gauge block. The reference values for each nominal length were taken as the arithmetic mean. The results of both participants are in good agreement with the reference values for all the gauge blocks measured. This makes the present comparison exercise valid to provide evidence of the participants' competence. The results also provides evidence to support the CMC claims of the participants in gauge block calibration by optical interferometry and for those service that stems out of this key technique as required by the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA). 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 CCL, 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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".