CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceProbability and Statistical Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The GUM revision: the Bayesian view toward the expression of measurement uncertainty

Lira, I·2016·European Journal of Physics
DOI 10.1088/0143-0807/37/2/025803
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract The ‘ Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement ’ (GUM) has been in use for more than 20 years, serving its purposes worldwide at all levels of metrology, from scientific to industrial and commercial applications. However, the GUM presents some inconsistencies, both internally and with respect to its two later Supplements. For this reason, the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, which is responsible for these documents, has decided that a major revision of the GUM is needed. This will be done by following the principles of Bayesian statistics, a concise summary of which is presented in this article. Those principles should be useful in physics and engineering laboratory courses that teach the fundamentals of data analysis and measurement uncertainty evaluation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0143-0807/37/2/025803

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Inconsistencies between the supplements and the main GUM text have been pointed out repeatedly.

    “However, inconsistencies between the supplements and the main GUM text have been pointed out repeatedly.28,[36][37][38]”

    From Uncertainty in Measurement and Total Error (2017) · cites this paper as [36]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, and OIML, 2008, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement
  2. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, and OIML, 2008, Supplement 1 to the ‘Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement’—Propagation of Distributions Using a Monte Carlo Method
  3. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, and OIML, 2012, Int. Vocabulary of Metrology—Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM 3rd edition)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Lira, I.
Affiliations
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
Corresponding author
Lira, I
ORCID
Lira, I
Venue
European Journal of Physics
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2016-02-01
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
025803
ISSN
  • 0143-0807 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6404
DOI
10.1088/0143-0807/37/2/025803
OpenAlex
W2524002203
Cited by
43
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
European Journal of Physics (publishedVersion)
Funders
Fondecyt (1141165)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
Keywords
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, measurement uncertainty, Bayesian analysis, uncertainty analysis, metrology, uncertainty intervals, data analysis education

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