Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 9th Symposium on Frequency Standards and Metrology [1] was held from the 16th to 20th of October at the Mantra on Salt Beach Resort in Kingscliff, New South Wales, Australia. The Symposium included a keynote lecture plus another 47 invited oral presentations and 105 invited poster contributions continually displayed over the week with two dedicated poster sessions. The Symposium is the most recent one of a series [2] that was initially organized by Jacques Vanier in 1971 in Forêt Montmorency in Quebec, Canada. The next ones took place in 1976 in Copper Mountain, USA, organized by Helmut Hellwig, 1981 in Aussois, France (Claude Audoin) [3], 1988 in Ancona, Italy (Andrea De Marchi) [4], 1995 in Woods Hole, USA (James Bergquist) [5], 2001 in St Andrews, UK (Patrick Gill) [6], 2008 in Pacific Grove, USA (Lute Maleki) [7], and in 2015 Potsdam, Germany (Fritz Riehle) [8]. The symposium series serves as an international discussion forum on precision frequency standards throughout the electromagnetic spectrum and associated metrology. It focuses on the fundamental scientific aspects of the latest ideas, results and applications in relation to these frequency standards. During the seven years after the last symposium very significant progress has occurred in various associated fields. The 9th Symposium, focusing on frequency standards and related metrology, was held at an historically significant time, as metrology recently underwent a radical change in the definitions of the SI base units. In 2019, these units were redefined in terms of physical constants, with time playing a central role, as the definition of the second, based on the ground state hyperfine frequency of the caesium atom, now influences the definition of all base units (except the mole). The symposium series remains a crucial meeting, with many laboratories conducting studies on optical frequency standards, a promising area with the potential to replace microwave frequency standards for a possible redefinition of the second. This could significantly impact the SI unit system. The realisation of the second based on caesium standards appears to have reached its accuracy limit at the level of 10−16. In contrast, the use of optical radiations allows for the realisation of frequency standards with accuracy at the level of 10−18 and beyond. Related to this, in 2016, the Consultative Committee for Time and Frequency (CCTF) published the first roadmap towards redefining the second. By 2020, the CCTF established a task force comprising about 40 experts from around the world to update this roadmap in preparation for a potential redefinition of the second in the coming years. The fundamentals of this process, along with the criteria that must be met and the challenges involved, are detailed in an open-source paper that fully supports the presentation by Tavella given at the 9th Symposium on Frequency Standards and Metrology [9]. List of Committees, Symposium Photographs, Sponsors and Participants of the 9FSM, 2024, Peer review statement are available in this pdf.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.539 | 0.377 |
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".