The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Revision of the ‘ Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement ’. Why and how
Open accessAbstract
The ' Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement ' has now served for more than twenty years. In this communication, after attempting a balance over this period, the logical reasons are given that, on the one hand, led to the decision to update such a successful document, and, on the other hand, dictated the modifications that are being carried out with respect to the current 2008 edition. The author is convener of the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) Working Group 1 (Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, or GUM). The opinion expressed in this paper does not necessarily represent the view of this Working Group.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Revised versions of the GUM 5 and VIM 9 are likely to explicitly endorse both error and uncertainty approaches, including both frequentist and Bayesian statistical methods.
“Revised versions of the GUM 5 and VIM 9 are likely to explicitly endorse both error and uncertainty approaches, including both frequentist and bayesian statistical methods.14,15,[96][97][98][99][100]”
From Uncertainty in Measurement and Total Error (2017) · cites this paper as [96]
Section 4.1 (p. 4) says the revised GUM will align with the Bayesian approach of its Supplements, rather than endorse frequentist and Bayesian methods alike. Section 3.2 (p. 4) says the JCGM found no valid alternative to that approach. The paper mentions alignment with the existing VIM3, not a predicted revision of the VIM. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 3 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Bich, W.
- Affiliations
- Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Bich, Walter
- ORCID
- Bich, Walter
- Venue
- Metrologia
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2014-07-11
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- S155-S158
- ISSN
- 0026-1394 (ISSN-L)
- 1681-7575
- OpenAlex
- W2069341835
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 7.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Metrologia (publishedVersion)
- CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (IRIS Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Electrical Measurement Techniques
- Keywords
- Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, measurement uncertainty, measurement standards, uncertainty analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
