Conversion of Temperatures and Thermodynamic Properties to the Basis of the International Temperature Scale of 1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tables of temperature differences between the International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90) and earlier temperature scales (IPTS-68, EPT-76, IPTS-48, and ITS-27) are presented. These tables also contain values of the derivatives of these differences with respect to temperature. Analytical equations to reproduce the temperature difference (T90 – T68) and its first derivative are also given. This information is needed for the adjustment of thermodynamic results to the basis of the ITS-90. Thus, for the most accurate thermodynamic results, it is preferable to change the temperatures of the original work to the ITS-90 and then recalculate the thermodynamic results on this basis. However, conversion formulae based upon a Taylor expansion of the enthalpy have been derived previously by Douglas (J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand., Sect. A 73, 451–470 (1969)). These equations are greatly simplified when the differences between the two temperature scales are small. Approximate effects resulting from the conversion from the IPTS-68 to the ITS-90 and from the IPTS-48 to the ITS-90 for existing calorimetric determinations of heat capacity, enthalpy, and entropy have been calculated with the equations of Douglas for ND4ReO4(s), BaSnF4(s), α-Al2O3(s), BeO·Al2O3(s), BeO·3Al2O3(s), and Mo(s). The results of these calculations are given in tables which can be used to assess conveniently the approximate effects on thermodynamic properties due to the differences in these temperature scales. It is found that only the most accurate thermodynamic results require examination and possible adjustment because of a change in the temperature scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".