NRC measurement set-up and preparatory work for CCT-K7.2021 key comparison of triple-point-of-water cells
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes the NRC measurement set-up and the preparatory work for the CCT-K7.2021 key comparison (KC) of triple-point-of-water (TPW) cells. The preparatory work at NRC (charged with piloting the KC) included a comprehensive testing of the measurement set-up, the definition of the new NRC national standard for the TPW temperature, and the evaluation of the uncertainty budgets relevant for this KC. The new NRC TPW national standard is composed of an ensemble of ten fused silica TPW cells, characterized in both their isotopic composition and impurity content. Three uncertainty budgets were evaluated, corresponding to three different cases involved in the measurements at the pilot laboratory: (a) the temperature difference between two TPW cells, which amounted to 26 μK ( k = 2), (b) the temperature difference between a TPW cell and NRC national reference, which amounted to 35 μK ( k = 2) and (c) the temperature difference between a comparison participant’s transfer cell and the comparison reference, composed of the average of two NRC national reference cells, which amounted to 19 μK ( k = 2).
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it