Evaluation of Measurement Data — Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)¶
Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. (2008). Evaluation of Measurement Data — Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM).
Cited by¶
5 citations across 5 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Bias
- International metrology standards formalize this split: the JCGM (2008) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement separates the correctable systematic effect from the random component and prescribes calibration against a reference standard to remove the former.
This sourceSèvres: Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. Explicitly separates the correctable systematic effect (a measurement offset that does not average out) from the random component, and prescribes correction/calibration against a reference standard to remove the former.
- International metrology standards formalize this split: the JCGM (2008) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement separates the correctable systematic effect from the random component and prescribes calibration against a reference standard to remove the former.
- Calibration
- It names the systematic procedure of measuring deviation between a system's output and a trusted external standard, then adjusting the system to reduce that deviation to an acceptable range.
This sourceBureau International des Poids et Mesures. Authoritative metrology guide that explicitly separates systematic error (a measurement offset that does not average out) from random error and grounds the treatment of measurement uncertainty against a reference.
- It names the systematic procedure of measuring deviation between a system's output and a trusted external standard, then adjusting the system to reduce that deviation to an acceptable range.
- Central Limit Theorem
- The √n intervention is operational: averaging \(n\) repeated readings shrinks the random-error standard deviation as \(1/\sqrt n\), so a metrologist who needs to halve noise quadruples the sample count, and the diminishing return is read directly off the square root.
This sourceCombines many small independent error sources into a Gaussian uncertainty budget and uses 1/√n reduction of random error by averaging repeated readings.
- The √n intervention is operational: averaging \(n\) repeated readings shrinks the random-error standard deviation as \(1/\sqrt n\), so a metrologist who needs to halve noise quadruples the sample count, and the diminishing return is read directly off the square root.
- Impartiality
- The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (JCGM, 2008) explicitly separates systematic error (a violation of impartiality) from random error, treating the absence of systematic offset as the substrate-furthest realization of the prime — no parties, no preferences, only a function from measurand to reading that must not drift as a function of irrelevant features such as which instance of the instrument is used or which operator runs it.
This sourceBureau International des Poids et Mesures. Explicitly separates systematic error (a measurement offset that does not average out — a violation of impartiality) from random error; treats the absence of systematic offset as a structural property of the measurement function rather than a virtue of the operator.
- The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (JCGM, 2008) explicitly separates systematic error (a violation of impartiality) from random error, treating the absence of systematic offset as the substrate-furthest realization of the prime — no parties, no preferences, only a function from measurand to reading that must not drift as a function of irrelevant features such as which instance of the instrument is used or which operator runs it.
- Measurement
- The observer-frame and uncertainty envelope are explicit: the value is reported as \(25.40 \pm 0.02\) mm, with the budget decomposed into systematic parts (jaw wear, thermal expansion if the lab is off 20°C) and random parts (reading repeatability), and the bare "25.40" is meaningless without that envelope.
This sourceStandard for reporting a value with an uncertainty envelope decomposed into systematic (Type B) and random (Type A) components.
- The observer-frame and uncertainty envelope are explicit: the value is reported as \(25.40 \pm 0.02\) mm, with the budget decomposed into systematic parts (jaw wear, thermal expansion if the lab is off 20°C) and random parts (reading repeatability), and the bare "25.40" is meaningless without that envelope.
Verification¶
This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:6848181f91bc · see in the full table