The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 34 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results
Open accessOverview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This NIST Technical Note 1297 (1994) gives guidelines for evaluating and expressing measurement uncertainty at NIST, adopting the CIPM/ISO Guide approach. It defines Type A and Type B evaluations, combined and expanded uncertainty, and reporting conventions, with \(k=2\) as the NIST default coverage factor.
Key findings
- NIST policy: represent each uncertainty component by a standard uncertainty \(u_i\), combine them by the root-sum-of-squares method into the combined standard uncertainty \(u_c\), and report expanded uncertainty \(U = k u_c\) with \(k=2\) by convention, or report \(u_c\); other \(k\) values require established and documented requirements.
- Type A evaluations use statistical methods; Type B evaluations use other means. The A/B distinction is not the same as “random”/“systematic.” Type B examples include dividing a quoted 95% interval by 1.960 and a 99% interval by 2.576; for a rectangular distribution \(u_j = a/\sqrt{3}\), for triangular \(u_j = a/\sqrt{6}\), and for normal models \(u_j \approx 1.48a\) for a 50% interval, \(u_j \approx a\) for 67%, and \(u_j \approx a/3\) for 99.73%.
- Coverage: when the normal distribution applies and \(u_c\) has negligible uncertainty, \(U=2u_c\) defines an interval with approximately 95% confidence and \(U=3u_c\) greater than 99%. Table B.1 gives \(t\)-factors; for example, if \(\nu_{\text{eff}}=8\), \(k_{95}=2.3\) rather than 2.0.
- Reporting examples use a nominal 100 g mass standard: \(m_s=(100.02147 \pm 0.00070)\) g with \(u_c=0.35\) mg and \(k=2\) gives approximately 95% confidence; a second example uses \(k=2.26\) based on \(t\) for \(\nu=9\); a third reports \(u_c=0.35\) mg with approximately 68% confidence. An end-gauge calibration uncertainty budget example gives combined standard uncertainty \(u_c(l)=34\) nm.
Methods
- Design: consensus/guideline document, the 1994 second edition of NIST TN 1297, based on the CIPM 1981 recommendation and the ISO *Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement*; intended for NIST measurement results.
- Data or sample: no empirical sample; illustrative examples include a nominal 100 g mass standard and an end-gauge calibration uncertainty budget.
- Main analysis: conceptual and policy guidance with formulas, including the law of propagation of uncertainty Eq. (A-3), Type A standard deviation of the mean Eq. (A-5), Type B assumed distributions, the Welch-Satterthwaite effective degrees of freedom, and \(t\)-distribution coverage factors.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the guidance is not NIST policy unless directly quoted; the Technical Note does not give detailed statistical techniques for Type A evaluations; Type B degrees of freedom are “more problematic”; the coverage-factor procedure is approximate and “should not be interpreted as being rigourous”; and it is generally not possible to know all uses of a measurement result.
- Stated in the paper: Type B evaluations depend on scientific judgment and available information, and Type A evaluations based on limited data are not necessarily more reliable than soundly based Type B evaluations.
- Evident from the text: this is a policy/guidance document rather than an empirical validation study, and its numerical examples are illustrative rather than generalizable results.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
41 Own interpretation · 30 Sources not found · 9 No basis given · 1 Not checked yet · 1 Own method · 1 Own result
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table B.1 (to be discussed below), if ν eff = 8, k 95 = 2.3 rather than 2.0.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the common case discussed in subsection A.4 where x i = X i and u(x i ) = s(X i ), the degrees of freedom of u(x i ) is ν = n 1.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > B.3
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To be consistent with current international practice, the value of k to be used at NIST for calculating U is, by convention, k = 2.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 6.5
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the terms”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If m i parameters are estimated by fitting a curve to n data points by the method of least squares, the degrees of freedom of the standard uncertainty of each paramter is n m.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > B.3
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under the assumption that this practice is followed, the degrees of freedom of u(x i ) may be taken to be ν i → ∞.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > B.3
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: It is common practice to carry out Type B evaluations in a manner that ensures underestimation is avoided.
- Rests on an assumption: When lower and upper limits are set for Type B evaluations, they are usually chosen so that the probability of the quantity lying outside these limits is extremely small.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence ν eff is a key factor in determining k .”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > B.2
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a combined standard uncertainty u ( y), the”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > B.2
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, the result of a measurement after correction (see subsection 5.2) can unknowably be very close to the unknown value of the measurand, and thus have negligible error, even though it may have a large uncertainty (see the Guide [2]).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The best estimate of the value of the quantity is then (a + + a ) / 2 with u j = a / ⎯ √3, where a = (a + a ) / 2.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 4.6
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 49
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is not always a simple correspondence between the classification of uncertainty components into categories A and B and the commonly used classification of uncertainty components as”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 2.3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is imperative that the referenced documents be kept up-to-date so that they are consistent with the measurement process in current use.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In both cases, the report of uncertainty must document what was done and why.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 6.6
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To estimate the value of such a coverage factor 1/2 (A-5) requires taking into account the uncertainty of u c ( y), that is,”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > B.2
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“When this is done, the c basis for such a statement must be given.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 7.1
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A description of how k was chosen when k is not taken equal to 2.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 7.1
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The four-step procedure is included in these guidelines because it is expected to find broad acceptance internationally, due in part to its computational convenience, in much the same way that k = 2 has become the conventional coverage factor.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > B.1
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Report U together with the coverage factor k used to obtain it, or report u .c”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 7.1
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Since the early 1980s, an international consensus has been developing on a uniform approach to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 1. Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CIPM approach does not specify how the relation between k and p is to be established.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 6.4
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Commonly, u is used for reporting results of c determinations of fundamental constants, fundamental metrological research, and international comparisons of realizations of SI units.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 5.3
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A detailed description of how each component of standard uncertainty was evaluated.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 7.1
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In principle, an uncertainty component arising from a systematic effect may in some cases be evaluated by method A while in other cases by method B (see subsection 2.2), as may be an uncertainty component arising from a random effect.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, only if quantitative and thoroughly documented statements of uncertainty accompany the results of NIST calibrations can the users of our calibration services establish their level of traceability to the U.S. standards of measurement maintained at NIST.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > FOREWORD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: It is generally agreed that the usefulness of measurement results, and thus much of the information that NIST provides as an institution, is to a large extent determined by the quality of the statements of uncertainty that accompany them.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case, and in other similar cases where ν ( y) is comparatively small and an interval eff of u c having a level of confidence close to a specified level is required, it is unlikely that the uncertainty of u ( y) would be c considered negligible.Instead, the small value of ν eff , and thus the uncertainty of u ( y), would probably be taken into c account when determining k p .”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Further, it is recognized c that international, national, or contractual agreements to which NIST is a party may occasionally require deviation from NIST policy.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 6.6
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this regard, the interval defined by U in the second example might be a conventional confidence interval (at least approximately) if all the components of uncertainty are obtained from Type A evaluations.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 7.3
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It should also be noted that in a 1986 recommendation [9], the CIPM requested that what is now termed combined standard uncertainty u be used”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 5.3
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of a single approach within the Institute rather than many different approaches would ensure the consistency of our outputs, thereby simplifying their interpretation.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > FOREWORD
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Although the vast majority of NIST measurement results are accompanied by quantitative statements of uncertainty, there has never been a uniform approach at NIST to the expression of uncertainty.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, although the procedure is based on a proven approximation, it should not be interpreted as being rigourous because the approximation is extrapolated to situations where its applicability has yet to be fully investigated.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > B.1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equation (A-3 ) is based on a first-order Taylor series approximation of Y = f(X 1 , X 2 , . . ., X N ) and is conveniently referred to as the law of propagation of uncertainty.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are national as well as international standards that discuss the characterization of test methods by interlaboratory comparisons.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > D.4.2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a standard uncertainty is obtained from a source outside of the current measurement process and the nature of its individual components are unknown (which will often be the case), it may be classified as having been obtained from a Type B evaluation.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When NIST authors participate in such characterization or measurement programs, NIST policy allows for the results to be expressed as required by the relevant standards (see Appendix C, section 4).”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > D.4.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, both u(x i ) and u i ( y) can be viewed as components of uncertainty that give rise to the combined standard uncertainty u ( y) of the measurement result y.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(This is an example of a situation in which all significant components of uncertainty are not taken into account.)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this same vein, if the combined standard uncertainty u ( y) of the measurement result y is obtained from Type A c standard uncertainties (and covariances) only, it too may be considered Type A, even though no direct observations were”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Eq. (D-1), both u(x i ) and u i ( y) can be considered components of uncertainty of the measurement result y.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such identification can also be given in a table which lists the components of standard uncertainty.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A valid statement of reproducibility requires specification of the conditions changed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus t of this Technical Note and of the p Guide and t 1 α are related by p 1 2α.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, if a combined standard uncertainty is obtained from Type B standard uncertainties (and covariances) only, it too may be considered Type B.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, the values of t p (ν ) defined in this way differ from the values of t p (ν ) defined as in this Technical Note and in the Guide, and given in Table B.1 (which is of the same form as that given in reference [10]).”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Many of NIST's sister national standards laboratories as well as a number of important metrological organizations, including the Western European Calibration Cooperation (WECC) and EUROMET, have adopted the approach recommended by the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) in 1981 [1] and reaffirmed by the CIPM in 1986 [2].”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 1. Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In particular, it elaborates upon the NIST policy regarding the SI and explains why abbreviations such as ppm and ppb and terms such as normality and molarity should not be used.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [D.3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, a standard uncertainty known to be composed of components obtained from Type A evaluations alone should be classified as a Type A standard uncertainty, while a standard uncertainty known to be composed of components obtained from Type B evaluations alone should be classified as a Type B standard uncertainty.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In such cases the magnitude of the uncertainty ascribable to the measurement result may be significantly smaller than when that result is expressed in the relevant SI unit.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, if the input estimates x i are uncorrelated, Eq. (A-3) of Appendix A may be written as (D-1)”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“If a test method is employed at NIST to obtain measurement results for reasons other than those described above, it is expected that the uncertainties of these measurement results will be evaluated and reported according to section 2 of the NIST policy (see Appendix C).”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > D.4.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Appendix C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many cases a measurand Y is not measured directly, but is determined from N other quantities X 1 , X 2 , . . ., X N through a functional relation f: Y f (X 1 , X 2 , . . ., X N ).”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As pointed out in the Guide, the result of a measurement is sometimes expressed in terms of the adopted value of a measurement standard or in terms of a conventional reference value rather than in terms of the relevant unit of the SI.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guide
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The approach to evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of a measurement result on which the NIST policy and this Technical Note are based is applicable to evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of the estimated value of a measurand that is defined by a standard method of measurement.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > D.4 Measurand defined by the measurement method; characterization of test methods; simple calibration D.4.1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This situation is similar to the NIST policy on the use of units that are not part of the SI: the SI units must be stated first, with the units that are not part of the SI in parentheses (see subsection D.6.2).”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > D.1.2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the function f of Eq. (A-1) should express not simply a physical law but a measurement process, and in particular, it should contain all quantities that can contribute a significant uncertainty to the measurement result.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“NIST Special Publication 811, 1995 Edition [D.3], gives guidance on the use of the SI and on the rules and style conventions regarding quantity and unit symbols.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [D.3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The development of the Guide is providing further impetus to the worldwide adoption of the CIPM approach.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 1. Background
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Execution of test methods according to these standards, both in the characterization stage and in subsequent measurement programs, often calls for the expression of uncertainties in terms of defined measures of repeatability and reproducibility.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > D.4.2
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Further, it views the concept of precision as encompassing both repeatability and reproducibility (see subsections D.1.1.2and D.1.1.3)”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > D.1.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [D.2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Included among the quantities X i are corrections (or correction factors) as described in subsection 5.2, as well as quantities that take into account other sources of variability, such as different observers, instruments, samples, laboratories, and times at which observations are made (e.g., different days).”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The CIPM approach is based on Recommendation INC-1 (1980) of the Working Group on the Statement of Uncertainties [3].”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 1. Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equally important, the CIPM approach has come into use in a significant number of areas at NIST and is also becoming accepted in U.S. industry.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > 1. Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the standard uncertainty from an outside source is known to be composed of components obtained from both Type A and Type B evaluations but the magnitudes of the individual components are unknown, then one may indicate this by using (A,B) rather than (B) in a table such as D.1.”
§ Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results > Additional information
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As pointed out in the Guide, the t-distribution is often tabulated in quantiles.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guide
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
In October 1992, a new policy on expressing measurement uncertainty was instituted at NIST.
“In October 1992, a new policy on expressing measurement uncertainty was instituted at NIST.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In general, the result of a measurement is only an approximation or estimate of the value of the measurand, and thus the result is complete only when accompanied by a quantitative statement of its uncertainty.
“In general, the result of a measurement is only an approximation or estimate of the value of the specific quantity subject to measurement, that is, the measurand, and thus the result is complete only when accompanied by a quantitative statement of its uncertainty.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Although the vast majority of NIST measurement results are accompanied by quantitative statements of uncertainty, there has never been a uniform approach at NIST to the expression of uncertainty.
“Although the vast majority of NIST measurement results are accompanied by quantitative statements of uncertainty, there has never been a uniform approach at NIST to the expression of uncertainty.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is generally agreed that the usefulness of measurement results, and thus much of the information that NIST provides as an institution, is to a large extent determined by the quality of the statements of uncertainty that accompany them.
“It is generally agreed that the usefulness of measurement results, and thus much of the information that we provide as an institution, is to a large extent determined by the quality of the statements of uncertainty that accompany them.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Guide represents the current international view of how to express uncertainty in measurement based on the CIPM approach.
“Although the Guide represents the current international view of how to express uncertainty in measurement based on the CIPM approach, it is a rather lengthy document.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A correction (or correction factor) is applied to compensate for each recognized systematic effect that significantly influences the measurement result, and every effort has been made to identify such effects.
“It is assumed that a correction (or correction factor) is applied to compensate for each recognized systematic effect that significantly influences the measurement result and that every effort has been made to identify such effects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The reliability of evaluations of components of uncertainty depends on the quality of the information available.
“Because the reliability of evaluations of components of uncertainty depends on the quality of the information available, it is recommended that all parameters upon which the measurand depends be varied to the fullest extent practicable so that the evaluations are based as much as possible on observed data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
For some commercial, industrial, and regulatory applications of NIST results, a measure of uncertainty that defines an interval about the measurement result within which the value of the measurand is confidently believed to lie is often required.
“for some commercial, industrial, and regulatory applications of NIST results (e.g., when health and safety are concerned), what is often required is a measure of uncertainty that defines an interval about the measurement result y within which the value of the measurand Y is confidently believed to lie.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The possible estimated values of the standard are approximately normally distributed with approximate standard deviation u_c.
“Since it can be assumed that the possible estimated values of the standard are approximately normally distributed with approximate standard deviation u , the c”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some users of NIST measurement results may automatically interpret U = 2u_c and u_c as defining intervals with levels of confidence of 95 percent and 68 percent, respectively.
“Some users of NIST measurement results may automatically interpret U = 2u and u as quantities that c c define intervals having levels of confidence corresponding to those of a normal distribution, namely, 95 percent and 68 percent, respectively.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is not possible to know in detail all uses to which a particular NIST measurement result will be put.
“In general, it is not possible to know in detail all of the uses to which a particular NIST measurement result will be put.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is common practice to carry out Type B evaluations in a manner that ensures underestimation is avoided.
“However, it is common practice to carry out such evaluations in a manner that ensures that an underestimation is avoided.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When lower and upper limits are set for Type B evaluations, they are usually chosen so that the probability of the quantity lying outside these limits is extremely small.
“For example, when lower and upper limits a and a + are set as in the case discussed in subsection A.5, they are usually chosen in such a way that the probability of the quantity in question lying outside these limits is in fact extremely small.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Precision is often taken to mean simply repeatability.
“Nevertheless, precision is often taken to mean simply repeatability.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It will take some time before the meanings of standard uncertainty, combined standard uncertainty, expanded uncertainty, and their relative forms become well known.
“However, since it will take some time before the meanings of these terms become well known, they should be defined at the beginning of a paper or when first used.”
Citations
Cites
Addelman, S., Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., & Hunter, J. S. (1979) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1267766 · Cited by 6,753
Natrella, M. G. (1963) · doi:10.6028/nbs.hb.91 · Cited by 593
The Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data.
David, H. T., & Mandel, J. (1966) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2282811 · Cited by 436
Realistic evaluation of the precision and accuracy of instrument calibration systems
Eisenhart, C. (1963) · Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards Section C Engineering and Instrumentation · doi:10.6028/jres.067c.015 · Cited by 200
Guide for the use of the International System of Units (SI)
Taylor, B. N., & Taylor, B. N. (1995) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.811e1995 · Cited by 87
Self-citationUncertainty, Calibration and Probability
Dietrich, C. F. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203734759 · Cited by 60
The Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data
Mandel, J., & Mansfield, J. E. (1965) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3047724 · Cited by 21
Giacomo, P. (1987) · Metrologia · doi:10.1088/0026-1394/24/1/007
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- CIPM, BIPM Proc.-Verb. Com. Int. Poids et Mesures 54, 14, 35 (1986) (in French);
- CIPM, BIPM Proc. Verb. Com. Int. Poids et Mesures Measurement Results, NIST Technical Note 1297, 49, 8-9, 26 (1981) (in French);
- CIPM, BIPM Proc.-Verb. Com. Int. Poids et Mesures 54, 14, 35 (1986) (in French);
- R. Kaarls, "Rapport du Groupe de Travail sur l'Expression des Incertitudes au Comité International des Poids et Mesures," Proc.-Verb. Com. Int. Poids et Mesures 49, A1-A12 (1981) (in French);
- I, H. H. Ku, Editor (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1969), pp. 21-48.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 2,401–2,500 of 2,832
Fluorinated Liquids: High-Pressure Phase Equilibrium with Carbon Dioxide
Lubimbi, Z., Nelson, W. M., Naidoo, P., & Ramjugernath, D. (2024) · Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data · doi:10.1021/acs.jced.4c00349 · Cited by 1
Pre-Launch Thermal Emissive Band Radiometric Performance for JPSS-3 and -4 VIIRS
Moyer, D. I., Angal, A., McIntire, J., & Xiong, X. J. (2024) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs16244630 · Cited by 1
Advanced hybrid algorithm for estimation of circularity deviation in coordinate metrology
Gsim, J., Jalid, A., & Es-sadek, M. Z. (2024) · Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering · doi:10.1088/1361-651x/ada051 · Cited by 1
Porous Nanocomposite Implants With Gold Nanoparticles for Plastic Surgery
Korotych, O. I., Dybkova, S. М., Maletskyi, A., Рєзніченко, Л. С., Kernosenko, L., Грузина, Т. Г., Poltoratska, T., Artiomov, O., Pasmurtseva, N., Podolska, V. I., et al. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.37851 · Cited by 1
Lee, G.-S., & Tan, E. W. (2025) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina61010119 · Cited by 1
Characterization of Semi-Open Liquid Desiccant Cycle Energy Efficiency in Ventilation Air Treatment
Bhagwat, R., Bhatia, R., Schmid, M., Sanadhya, S., Verma, A., & Moghaddam, S. S. (2024) · International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer · doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2025.127061 · Cited by 1
Validation of a heat transfer model for noninvasive leak detection in heating pipes
Zhao, M., Liu, Y., Cao, H., Wang, S., & Song, W. (2025) · Case Studies in Thermal Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.csite.2025.106118 · Cited by 1
Application of 3-D Printing and Upconversion to Optical Temperature Sensors
Hernández‐Álvarez, C., Díaz-Serrano, A., Rivera‐López, F., Martin, I. R., & Rı́os, S. (2025) · IEEE Sensors Journal · doi:10.1109/jsen.2025.3569070 · Cited by 1
Cecchel, S., Lamberti, A., Battini, D., Avanzini, A., & Cornacchia, G. (2025) · Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A · doi:10.1007/s11661-025-07883-5 · Cited by 1
Uncertainties of frequency response estimates derived from responses to uncertain step-like inputs
Deyst, J. P., Souders, T. M., & Blair, J. J. (2002) · Conference proceedings - IEEE Instrumentation/Measurement Technology Conference · doi:10.1109/imtc.1996.507366 · Cited by 1
Comparison of semi-quantitative and formal metrics for multi-zone airflow model quality assessment
Bahnfleth, W. P., Saekow, P., Firrantello, J., & Kremer, P. A. (2012) · Science and Technology for the Built Environment · doi:10.1080/10789669.2011.577726 · Cited by 1
An accurate method for measuring the dielectric constant of printed wiring board materials
Paulter, N. G. (2000) · Circuit World · doi:10.1108/03056120010302197 · Cited by 1
Mukhopadhyay, N. D., Sampson, A. J., Deniz, D., Carlsson, G. A., Williamson, J., & Malušek, A. (2011) · Applied Radiation and Isotopes · doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2011.09.015 · Cited by 1
Estimation of basic uncertainties in clinical analysis
Ertaş, O. S., & Kayali, A. (2002) · European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.1007/bf03190419 · Cited by 1
A new approach to gas flow calibration
Levine, P. D. (2010) · Measurement · doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2010.09.022 · Cited by 1
Ultra-low phase noise frequency synthesis from optical atomic frequency standards
Howe, D. A., Hati, A., & Nelson, C. W. (2014) · European Frequency and Time Forum · doi:10.1109/eftf.2014.7331422 · Cited by 1
Funaki, K., Fujikami, J., IWAKUMA, M., Kasahara, H., Kawabata, S., Tanaka, Y., & Ehara, K. (2009) · Cryogenics · doi:10.1016/j.cryogenics.2009.12.001 · Cited by 1
Schmitz, T. L., & Smith, S. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09645-2_6 · Cited by 1
Windover, D., Gil, D., Cline, J. P., Henins, A., Armstrong, N. R., Hung, P. Y., Song, S. C., Jammy, R., & Diebold, A. C. (2007) · MRS Proceedings · doi:10.1557/proc-0996-h07-05 · Cited by 1
Decision tree based uncertainty framework for water accounting
Jin, H. (., Barry, S., Paydar, Z., Shao, Q., & Van Dijk, A. (2011) · International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM) · doi:10.36334/modsim.2011.i9.jin · Cited by 1
Compressed isobutane as a solvent of heavy hydrocarbons
Rincón, J., Martínez, F., & Martín, A. (2016) · AIChE Journal · doi:10.1002/aic.15216 · Cited by 1
Long-term stability of the NIST Conical Reference Transducer
Fick, S. E., & Proctor, T. M. (2011) · Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology · doi:10.6028/jres.116.024 · Cited by 1
Watt, E., Spencer, D. P., & Meyer, T. (2017) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.12478 · Cited by 1
Radioactivity Counting Statistics
Malonda, A. G., & Carles, A. G. (2012) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-384873-4.00002-5 · Cited by 1
Modified SPC for short run test and measurement process in multi-stations
Koh, C. K., Chin, J. F., & Kamaruddin, S. (2018) · IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · doi:10.1088/1757-899x/328/1/012009 · Cited by 1
Investigation of a source model for a new electronic brachytherapy tandem by film measurement
Martin, E., Sowards, K. T., & Wang, B. (2018) · Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/acm2.12440 · Cited by 1
Measurement Uncertainty for Printed Textiles
de Lima, N. N., Conni, M., Green, P., & Barbieri, M. (2018) · Colour and Visual Computing Symposium (CVCS) · doi:10.1109/cvcs.2018.8496653 · Cited by 1
Rode, G. G. (2019) · Ukrainian Journal of Physics · doi:10.15407/ujpe64.5.371 · Cited by 1
Effects of Airflow Profile and Condensation Pressure on Performance of Air-Cooled Condensers
Davies, W. A., & Hrnjak, P. (2019) · Heat Transfer Engineering · doi:10.1080/01457632.2019.1674553 · Cited by 1
Conceptual design of Doppler shift spectroscopy diagnostics for INTF
Deka, A. J., Bharathi, P., Bandyopadhay, M., Singh, M., & Chakraborty, A. K. (2020) · Fusion Engineering and Design · doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2020.112005 · Cited by 1
Spectrometer configuration and measurement uncertainty in X‐ray spectroscopy
Redus, R. H., Huber, A. C., & Dubay, R. (2020) · X-Ray Spectrometry · doi:10.1002/xrs.3209 · Cited by 1
The Measurement Model and Uncertainty
Crowder, S. V., Delker, C., Forrest, E., & Martin, N. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53329-8_6 · Cited by 1
Crowder, S. V., Delker, C., Forrest, E., & Martin, N. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53329-8_2 · Cited by 1
Effect of Dual-Height Plate Fins on Phase Change Material Cooling Technique: An Experimental Study
Singh, M. R., Giri, A., & Lingfa, P. (2021) · Lecture notes in mechanical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-7711-6_62 · Cited by 1
Hazmi, A. S. A., Maurad, Z. A., Noor, M. A. M., Din, N. S. M. N. M., & Idris, Z. (2021) · Journal of Separation Science · doi:10.1002/jssc.202000929 · Cited by 1
Design of Phototherapy Radiometer with a Measurement Stability Improvement
Megantari, A. D., Syaifudin, S., & Setioningsih, E. D. (2021) · Journal of Electronics Electromedical Engineering and Medical Informatics · doi:10.35882/jeeemi.v3i1.5 · Cited by 1
Medvescek, J. I., Mydlarski, L. B., & Baliga, B. R. (2021) · Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data · doi:10.1021/acs.jced.0c00680 · Cited by 1
Ledo, J. M., Flores, H., Ramos, F., Freitas, V. L. S., & da Silva, M. D. M. C. R. (2022) · The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics · doi:10.1016/j.jct.2022.106837 · Cited by 1
Techniques and Tools for Photo Metrology
Yanof, A. W. (2001) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-081551444-2.50006-9 · Cited by 1
Latest Progress in Dosimetry and Near-Field Evaluations for Mobile Communications Devices
Kuster, N. (2006) · Kluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-306-46901-4_1 · Cited by 1
In Vivo Monitoring Program Manual, PNL-MA-574, Rev 5.1
Lynch, T. P. (2011) · doi:10.2172/1024546 · Cited by 1
Variable‐Temperature Microwave Dielectric Properties of Singlecrystal Fluorides
Geyer, R. G., Baker‐Jarvis, J., & Krupka, J. (2006) · Ceramic transactions /Ceramic transactions · doi:10.1002/9781118408186.ch6 · Cited by 1
Radiation and Health Technology Laboratory Capabilities
Goles, R. W., Johnson, M. L., Piper, R. K., Peters, J., Murphy, M. K., Mercado, M. S., Bihl, D. E., & Lynch, T. P. (2003) · doi:10.2172/893258 · Cited by 1
Hernández, R. M. (2014) · doi:10.31428/10317/4780 · Cited by 1
Delgado, D. R., Vargas, É. F., & R., F. M. (2011) · Revista Vitae · doi:10.17533/udea.vitae.8779 · Cited by 1
Explanation of Key Error and Uncertainty Concepts and Terms
Mari, L. P. (2005) · Handbook of Measuring System Design · doi:10.1002/0471497398.mm155 · Cited by 1
NIST assessment of uncertainties for standard antenna measurements
Camell, D. G., & Cavcey, K. H. (1999) · IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility · doi:10.1109/isemc.1999.812934 · Cited by 1
Statistical aspects of linkage analysis in interlaboratory studies
Rukhin, A. L., & Strawderman, W. E. (2005) · Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference · doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2005.09.004 · Cited by 1
Wu, J., Ohadi, M. M., Dessiatoun, S. V., & Qi, J. (2005) · ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE) · doi:10.1115/imece2005-81815 · Cited by 1
A Systematic Approach to Accurate Evaluation of CD-Metrology Tools
Orji, N. G., Bunday, B. D., Dixson, R. G., & Allgair, J. A. (2007) · IEEE International Conference on Microelectronic Test Structures (ICMTS) · doi:10.1109/icmts.2007.374446 · Cited by 1
Salanti, G., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.012 · Cited by 1
Specifying commercial atomic frequency standards using statistics
Watts, D., Li, F., Vu, F., Cashin, W. F., & English, T. C. (2002) · Joint Conference of the European Frequency and Time Forum and IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium (EFTF/IFCS) · doi:10.1109/freq.1996.560290 · Cited by 1
Estimation of Characteristic Parameters of a Grain‐Bridging Model for Crack‐Extension Resistance
Krause, R. F. J. (1999) · Journal of the American Ceramic Society · doi:10.1111/j.1551-2916.1999.tb20072.x · Cited by 1
Evolution of Deformation-Induced Surface Morphologies Generated in Fe-Based Sheet
Stoudt, M. R., Hubbard, J. B., & Banovic, S. W. (2004) · SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · doi:10.4271/2004-01-0166 · Cited by 1
In-Cavity Calibration of Heat-Flux Sensors: Experimental Validation
Murthy, A. V., Fraser, G. T., & Dewitt, D. (2005) · AIAA Thermophysics Conference · doi:10.2514/6.2005-5323 · Cited by 1
Comparison of the NIST and PTB Air-Kerma Standards for Low-Energy X-Rays
O’Brien, M., & Bueermann, L. (2009) · Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology · doi:10.6028/jres.114.023 · Cited by 1
What is Needed in Experimental Methods Instruction- Perspectives from a Government Laboratory
Anthony, R., & Sondergaard, R. (2008) · AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit · doi:10.2514/6.2008-705 · Cited by 1
Vincent, J. D., Hodges, S. E., Vampola, J. L., Stegall, M. D., & Pierce, G. (2015) · doi:10.1002/9781119011897.ch11 · Cited by 1
Propane gas fire experiments in residential scale structures
Willi, J. M. (2017) · doi:10.6028/nist.tn.1953 · Cited by 1
Standard Reference Materials :
Moiseeva, N. P., & Strouse, G. F. (1999) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-138 · Cited by 1
Comparative statistical analysis of test parts manufactured in production environments
Gilsinn, D. E., & Ling, A. V. (2002) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.6868 · Cited by 1
Rationale and procedures for development of a NASA primary metrology laboratory for large optics
Vorburger, T. V., Evans, C. J., & Estler, W. T. (2001) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.6710 · Cited by 1
Wagner, R. P., & Nedzelnitsky, V. (2008) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.7526 · Cited by 1
SRM 1967a: High-Purity Platinum Thermoelement
Garrity, K. M., Ripple, D. C., & Tew, W. L. (2016) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-183 · Cited by 1
Study of Organic Rankine Cycles for Waste Heat Recovery in Transportation Vehicles
Royo-Pascual, L. (2017) · doi:10.4995/thesis/10251/84013 · Cited by 1
Hutchinson, J. M. R. (2004) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.250-5a · Cited by 1
Report on USDA ultraviolet spectroradiometers
Early, E. A., & Thompson, A. E. (1996) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.5871 · Cited by 1
Nightingale, S., Johnson, E., & Winters, T. (2009) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.500-273v2 · Cited by 1
Multimode fiber launch study :
Tasshi, A. D. (2010) · doi:10.6028/nist.tn.1556 · Cited by 1
Phillips, S. D., Sawyer, D., Ward, D. E., & Caskey, G. W. (1994) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-120 · Cited by 1
NIST special test service for four-terminal-pair capacitance standards from 0.01 [mu]F to 100 [mu]F
Avramov-Zamvrovic, S. (2007) · doi:10.6028/nist.tn.1486 · Cited by 1
Standard reference materials :
Gilbert, S. L., & Swann, W. C. (2002) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-146 · Cited by 1
Contreras, E. M. C. (2017) · doi:10.14393/ufu.di.2017.317 · Cited by 1
Sieber, J. R., Molloy, J. L., Bibb, C. E., Boyce, M. W., & Heckert, N. A. (2020) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-200 · Cited by 1
Sharp, D. (2014) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b15474-9 · Cited by 1
Aznam, S. M., Maruoka, N., Imai, R., & Mori, S. (2021) · Journal of Thermal Science and Technology · doi:10.1299/jtst.2021jtst0041 · Cited by 1
Stakes, K., & Willi, J. M. (2019) · doi:10.54206/102376/ceci9490 · Cited by 1
Report on high energy arcing fault experiments :
Putorti, A. D., Bareham, S., Hnetkovsky, E. J., Brown, C., Tam, W. C., Link, E., Selepak, M. J., Deardorff, P., Hamburger, K., Melly, N., et al. (2021) · doi:10.6028/nist.tn.2188 · Cited by 1
In vitro evaluation of BACtrack®'s smartphone-connected personal breath alcohol analyzersPreprint
Olson, A. (2021) · doi:10.22541/au.163776893.31418908/v2 · Cited by 1
Heat Transfer Coefficient and Pressure Gradient of R32 and R1234yf Mixtures in a Microchannel TubePreprint
Li, H., & Hrnjak, P. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3985277 · Cited by 1
Value assignment of Reference Material 8405 hazelnut flour for allergen detection
Phillips, M. M., Bunk, D. M., Green, A. B., & Yen, J. H. (2022) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-219 · Cited by 1
Evaluation specimens for Izod impact machines (SRM 2115) :
Splett, J. D., & Siewert, T. A. (2006) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-164 · Cited by 1
Certification of Standard Reference Material 3289 multivitamin tablets
Hayes, H. V., Mulloor, J., Nelson, M. A., Rimmer, C. A., Regalado, L., Yen, J. H., & Yu, L. L. (2022) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-220 · Cited by 1
Kim, S., Lee, D., & Jeon, Y. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4058789 · Cited by 1
Lad, A. A., Tayade, A., Hoque, M. J., Mahmud, M. H., Diao, F. M., Wu, Y., Zhao, Y., Balda, J. C., King, W. P., & Miljkovic, N. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4059089 · Cited by 1
Tang, Y. H., & Miller, W. B. (2002) · Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements · doi:10.1109/cpem.2000.850974 · Cited by 1
Calibration service for low-level pulsed-laser radiometers at 1.06 µm :
Leonhardt, R. W. (2004) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.250-64 · Cited by 1
The NIST gage block calibration software system user's manual
Zimmerman, J. (2000) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.6387 · Cited by 1
Impact of sprinklers on the fire hazard in dormitories :
Madrzykowski, D. M. (2010) · doi:10.6028/nist.tn.1658 · Cited by 1
Datla, R. U., Hsia, J. J., Wang, L., & Gupta, D. (1995) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-122 · Cited by 1
Certification of standard reference material 3389 ginsenoside calibration solution
Wilson, W. B., Sander, L. C., Place, B. J., & Yen, J. H. (2019) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-196 · Cited by 1
Fuel Pyrolysis at Atmospheric and Elevated Pressure Conditions in Micro-Flow Tube Reactor
Shrestha, U. (2017) · doi:10.18130/v3162f · Cited by 1
Opportunities for Development of Reference Materials for Beryllium
Watters, R., Hoover, M., Day, G., & Stefaniak, A. B. (2006) · doi:10.1520/stp37485s · Cited by 1
Standard Reference Materials :
Schiller, S. B. (1996) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-125 · Cited by 1
Ellisor, D. L., Place, B. J., Phillips, M. M., & Yen, J. H. (2021) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.260-14 · Cited by 1
Bartolucci, A. A., Singh, K. P., & Bae, S. (2015) · doi:10.1002/9781118736890.ch7 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, B. N.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Taylor, B N
- ORCID
- Taylor, B N
- Venue
- National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Technical Note 1297
- Publisher
- National Bureau of Standards
- Published
- 1994
- OpenAlex
- W4300497458
- Cited by
- 2,833
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 82 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 133 · 2021: 141 · 2020: 156 · 2019: 141 · 2018: 150 · 2017: 135 · 2016: 116 · 2015: 105 · 2014: 103 · 2013: 100 · 2012: 112
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Numerical Methods and Algorithms
- Keywords
- measurement uncertainty, uncertainty analysis, uncertainty expression, measurement results, NIST guidelines
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
