Uncertainty Analysis in Hygrothermal Measurements and Its Effect on Experimental Conclusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In hygrothermal measurements a variety of sensors and data acquisition systems are used. Measurement uncertainty is always associated with the experimental work conducted using these devices. Although uncertainty analysis methodology has been well established, performing an uncertainty analysis for a complex hygrothermal measurement system that involves various uncertainty sources and requires multiple levels of uncertainty propagation is not an easy task. Such uncertainty analysis is essential for evaluating the accuracy or “goodness” of the experimental work. More importantly, uncertainty of the measurement is vital in evaluating the validity of the conclusions drawn from the experimental data. Without an appropriate uncertainty analysis, the experimental work cannot be considered complete and the experimental conclusions can be questioned. This paper presents an uncertainty analysis for a vapor pressure measurement system involved in a research project on ventilation drying in wall systems. The influence of the uncertainty on the validity of one experimental conclusion is studied. It demonstrates that considering measurement uncertainty provides a way to understand the experimental conclusion from the probability perspective.
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 | 0.051 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".