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

<abstract language="eng">The evaluation of uncertainty associated with an analytic result is an essential part of the measurement process. Recently, several approaches to evaluate the uncertainty in measurement have been developed. Here, the gas chromatography assay uncertainty for natural gas is compared by some of these approaches: the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) approach, top-down approach (reproducibility estimate from an inter-laboratory study), Barwick & Ellison (data from validation), study of variability and fuzzy approach. The comparison shows that GUM, Barwick & Ellison and fuzzy approaches lead to comparable uncertainty evaluations, which does not happen with the top-down approach and study of variability by the absence of data normality

Comparação de diferentes abordagens para avaliação da incerteza na cromatografia gasosa do gás natural