Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Despite this status as a withdrawn former participant, enough NIST data was taken prior to the comparison to provide a direct linkage to the results of the K7.1 using the measurements on a NIST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 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) | 0.002 | 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".