True value, error, and measurement uncertainty: two views

IF 0.8 4区 工程技术 Q4 CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL
Jong Wha Lee, Euijin Hwang, Raghu N. Kacker
{"title":"True value, error, and measurement uncertainty: two views","authors":"Jong Wha Lee,&nbsp;Euijin Hwang,&nbsp;Raghu N. Kacker","doi":"10.1007/s00769-022-01508-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Measurement uncertainty, as established in the <i>Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement</i> (GUM), is a central concept in metrology. The GUM is known for its detailed discussions on the concepts of true value and error and their relation to measurement uncertainty. However, the GUM statements on true value and error have been a source of conceptual controversies, sometimes leading to inconsistent or unclear descriptions on true value, error, and uncertainty. Here, we discuss that such controversies arise from an unclear distinction between two views of measurement with fundamentally different premises. In one of the views, called the realist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of estimating or determining the true value, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of reasonable estimates of true values. In the other view, called the instrumentalist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of assigning values to a measurand, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of values that could reasonably be assigned to a measurand. By examining the philosophy of measurement in each view, we show that a clear understanding of the two views is critical for understanding the GUM.\n</p></div>","PeriodicalId":454,"journal":{"name":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","volume":"27 4","pages":"235 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00769-022-01508-9.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00769-022-01508-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Measurement uncertainty, as established in the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), is a central concept in metrology. The GUM is known for its detailed discussions on the concepts of true value and error and their relation to measurement uncertainty. However, the GUM statements on true value and error have been a source of conceptual controversies, sometimes leading to inconsistent or unclear descriptions on true value, error, and uncertainty. Here, we discuss that such controversies arise from an unclear distinction between two views of measurement with fundamentally different premises. In one of the views, called the realist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of estimating or determining the true value, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of reasonable estimates of true values. In the other view, called the instrumentalist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of assigning values to a measurand, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of values that could reasonably be assigned to a measurand. By examining the philosophy of measurement in each view, we show that a clear understanding of the two views is critical for understanding the GUM.

真值、误差和测量不确定度:两种观点
《测量不确定度表达指南》(GUM)中确定的测量不确定度是计量学中的一个核心概念。GUM以详细讨论真值和误差的概念以及它们与测量不确定度的关系而闻名。然而,GUM关于真值和误差的陈述一直是概念争议的来源,有时会导致对真值、误差和不确定性的不一致或不明确的描述。在这里,我们讨论这样的争议源于两种具有根本不同前提的测量观点之间的不明确区分。在一种被称为现实主义观点的观点中,测量被认为是一种估计或确定真实值的活动,在这种情况下,测量不确定性代表了对真实值的合理估计的分散。在另一种被称为仪器主义的观点中,测量被认为是一种给被测量对象赋值的活动,在这种情况下,测量不确定性代表了可以合理地给被测量对象赋值的离散度。通过检查每个视图中的度量哲学,我们表明清楚地理解这两个视图对于理解GUM至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accreditation and Quality Assurance
Accreditation and Quality Assurance 工程技术-分析化学
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accreditation and Quality Assurance has established itself as the leading information and discussion forum for all aspects relevant to quality, transparency and reliability of measurement results in chemical and biological sciences. The journal serves the information needs of researchers, practitioners and decision makers dealing with quality assurance and quality management, including the development and application of metrological principles and concepts such as traceability or measurement uncertainty in the following fields: environment, nutrition, consumer protection, geology, metallurgy, pharmacy, forensics, clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, and microbiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信