English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Correcting indications, or compensating for systematic errors, is an indispensable factor in ensuring the reliability of measurement results in routine calibration laboratories. Different methodologies for the application of this correction can be adopted, since the guide for the expression of uncertainty in measurement ISO GUM is not sufficiently clear about whether: a) the correction procedure should be executed on each measure indication individually, or b) the correction procedure should be applied to the average of the measure indications. The main objective of the present work is to discuss and analyze the different methodologies that can be applied to the correction of indications through simulations and the various ways for defining the systematic effect itself. The expected result is to show that Type A uncertainty estimation depends directly on the method utilized for correcting indications. The main consequence is that measurement results always depend on the correction method chosen.

Analyses of different methodologies employed for correcting systematic effect