To what extent can an uncertainty calculation be general?
It is argued that results of uncertainty calculations in chemical analysis should be taken into consideration with some caution owing to their limited generality. The issue of the uncertainty in uncertainty estimation is discussed in two aspects. The first is due to the differences between procedure...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Accreditation and quality assurance 1998-03, Vol.3 (3), p.131-133 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 133 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 131 |
| container_title | Accreditation and quality assurance |
| container_volume | 3 |
| creator | Kuselman, I. |
| description | It is argued that results of uncertainty calculations in chemical analysis should be taken into consideration with some caution owing to their limited generality. The issue of the uncertainty in uncertainty estimation is discussed in two aspects. The first is due to the differences between procedure-oriented and result-oriented uncertainty assessments, and the second is due to the differences between the theoretical calculation of uncertainty and its quantication using the validation (experimental) data. It is shown that the uncertainty calculation for instrumental analytical methods using a regression calibration curve is result-oriented and meaningful only until the next calibration. A scheme for evaluation of the uncertainty in uncertainty calculation by statistical analysis of experimental data is given and illustrated with examples from the author's practice. Some recommendations for the design of corresponding experiments are formulated. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s007690050205 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2917909976</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2917909976</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c195t-fd135a1416b7fce26e222e3ab4a44f13f9cc1f7f4b51cf64d123026c0e9f7f43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUE1LxDAUDKJgXT16L3iuvpePxpxEFl2FBS-9lzT7ol1quiYpuv_eLutFGGZgGGZgGLtGuEUAfZdmqg2AAg7qhBUoBa9AoT5lBRhpKtRanbOLlLYAqO5RFMw0Y_n9YXNJP5lCLp0N5YwpOIrZ9iHvZ2tw02BzP4ayo_KdAkU7PFyyM2-HRFd_umDN81OzfKnWb6vX5eO6cmhUrvwGhbIose60d8Rr4pyTsJ20UnoU3jiHXnvZKXS-lhvkAnjtgMzBFQt2c6zdxfFropTb7TjFMC-23KA2YIyu51R1TLk4phTJt7vYf9q4bxHawzntv3PEL412Vdc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2917909976</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>To what extent can an uncertainty calculation be general?</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Kuselman, I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kuselman, I.</creatorcontrib><description>It is argued that results of uncertainty calculations in chemical analysis should be taken into consideration with some caution owing to their limited generality. The issue of the uncertainty in uncertainty estimation is discussed in two aspects. The first is due to the differences between procedure-oriented and result-oriented uncertainty assessments, and the second is due to the differences between the theoretical calculation of uncertainty and its quantication using the validation (experimental) data. It is shown that the uncertainty calculation for instrumental analytical methods using a regression calibration curve is result-oriented and meaningful only until the next calibration. A scheme for evaluation of the uncertainty in uncertainty calculation by statistical analysis of experimental data is given and illustrated with examples from the author's practice. Some recommendations for the design of corresponding experiments are formulated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0949-1775</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0517</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s007690050205</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Calibration ; Chemical analysis ; Mathematical analysis ; Statistical analysis ; Uncertainty</subject><ispartof>Accreditation and quality assurance, 1998-03, Vol.3 (3), p.131-133</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c195t-fd135a1416b7fce26e222e3ab4a44f13f9cc1f7f4b51cf64d123026c0e9f7f43</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2917909976?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21367,27901,27902,33721,43781</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kuselman, I.</creatorcontrib><title>To what extent can an uncertainty calculation be general?</title><title>Accreditation and quality assurance</title><description>It is argued that results of uncertainty calculations in chemical analysis should be taken into consideration with some caution owing to their limited generality. The issue of the uncertainty in uncertainty estimation is discussed in two aspects. The first is due to the differences between procedure-oriented and result-oriented uncertainty assessments, and the second is due to the differences between the theoretical calculation of uncertainty and its quantication using the validation (experimental) data. It is shown that the uncertainty calculation for instrumental analytical methods using a regression calibration curve is result-oriented and meaningful only until the next calibration. A scheme for evaluation of the uncertainty in uncertainty calculation by statistical analysis of experimental data is given and illustrated with examples from the author's practice. Some recommendations for the design of corresponding experiments are formulated.</description><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Chemical analysis</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><issn>0949-1775</issn><issn>1432-0517</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpVUE1LxDAUDKJgXT16L3iuvpePxpxEFl2FBS-9lzT7ol1quiYpuv_eLutFGGZgGGZgGLtGuEUAfZdmqg2AAg7qhBUoBa9AoT5lBRhpKtRanbOLlLYAqO5RFMw0Y_n9YXNJP5lCLp0N5YwpOIrZ9iHvZ2tw02BzP4ayo_KdAkU7PFyyM2-HRFd_umDN81OzfKnWb6vX5eO6cmhUrvwGhbIose60d8Rr4pyTsJ20UnoU3jiHXnvZKXS-lhvkAnjtgMzBFQt2c6zdxfFropTb7TjFMC-23KA2YIyu51R1TLk4phTJt7vYf9q4bxHawzntv3PEL412Vdc</recordid><startdate>19980301</startdate><enddate>19980301</enddate><creator>Kuselman, I.</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980301</creationdate><title>To what extent can an uncertainty calculation be general?</title><author>Kuselman, I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c195t-fd135a1416b7fce26e222e3ab4a44f13f9cc1f7f4b51cf64d123026c0e9f7f43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Chemical analysis</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kuselman, I.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>Accreditation and quality assurance</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kuselman, I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>To what extent can an uncertainty calculation be general?</atitle><jtitle>Accreditation and quality assurance</jtitle><date>1998-03-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>131</spage><epage>133</epage><pages>131-133</pages><issn>0949-1775</issn><eissn>1432-0517</eissn><abstract>It is argued that results of uncertainty calculations in chemical analysis should be taken into consideration with some caution owing to their limited generality. The issue of the uncertainty in uncertainty estimation is discussed in two aspects. The first is due to the differences between procedure-oriented and result-oriented uncertainty assessments, and the second is due to the differences between the theoretical calculation of uncertainty and its quantication using the validation (experimental) data. It is shown that the uncertainty calculation for instrumental analytical methods using a regression calibration curve is result-oriented and meaningful only until the next calibration. A scheme for evaluation of the uncertainty in uncertainty calculation by statistical analysis of experimental data is given and illustrated with examples from the author's practice. Some recommendations for the design of corresponding experiments are formulated.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><doi>10.1007/s007690050205</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0949-1775 |
| ispartof | Accreditation and quality assurance, 1998-03, Vol.3 (3), p.131-133 |
| issn | 0949-1775 1432-0517 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2917909976 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals; ProQuest Central |
| subjects | Calibration Chemical analysis Mathematical analysis Statistical analysis Uncertainty |
| title | To what extent can an uncertainty calculation be general? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T00%3A59%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=To%20what%20extent%20can%20an%20uncertainty%20calculation%20be%20general?&rft.jtitle=Accreditation%20and%20quality%20assurance&rft.au=Kuselman,%20I.&rft.date=1998-03-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=131&rft.epage=133&rft.pages=131-133&rft.issn=0949-1775&rft.eissn=1432-0517&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s007690050205&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2917909976%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2917909976&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |