MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401170780 · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8533

Traceable comparisons of water triple-point cells

2024· report· en· W4401170780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Weston L. Tew

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPhysical Measurement LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and Technology
KeywordsTriple pointPoint (geometry)Environmental scienceMathematicsPhysicsGeometryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A specific sub-set of comparison data is presented for two NIST water-triple-point cells that provide traceability to the results of the 2023 Consultative Committee for Thermometry CCT-K7.2021 CIPM Key Comparison of Water-Triple-Point Cells. NIST had initially been an official participant in the CCT-K7.2021 but decided to withdraw from the comparison after the breakage of two NIST transfer cells. Despite this status as a withdrawn former participant, enough NIST data was taken prior to the comparison to provide a direct linkage to the results of the K7.1 using the measurements on a NIST transfer cell performed by the Pilot Laboratory, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC). The NIST data was obtained from routine scale maintenance and research activities, and hence did not conform to the official protocol of the CCT-K7.2021, but these data are of good quality and sufficient to establish an overall transfer uncertainty of less than 0.1 mK. The linkage does not convey an official status suitable for establishing Calibration Measurement Capabilities (CMCs) under the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). However, the linkage is sufficient to provide evidence of traceability to the CCT-K7.2021 and supports NIST Quality System requirements for thermometric standards under the ISO 17025(2017).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207