Meta-Analysis Options for Inconsistent Nuclear Measurements

Burr, Tom; Williams, Brian J.; Croft, Stuart; White, Morgan Curtis; Hanson, Kenneth M.

doi:10.13182/nse11-112

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A closely related problem arises when a group of independent laboratories measures the same quantity, and we want to combine the results to determine the best estimate. For approaches related to ours, see [20, 21, 22]. …”

Section: Theoretical Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bayesian approach to an interlaboratory comparison

Jackson

Muzikar

Goehring

2015

Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interlaboratory comparisons are an important check of the quality of a measurement technique. In this paper we examine the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurement of 41Ca, an unstable isotope of calcium that has emerged as a valuable tracer for a variety of studies. We use a Bayesian framework to explore the quality and consistency of the AMS measurements made by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement Laboratory (PRIME Lab). This framework should be generalizable to other interlaboratory comparisons. The laboratories measured 47 samples, with each lab measuring an aliquot of each sample. The Bayesian approach allowed us to derive a probability distribution for four parameters reflecting the quality of the data, and to then address the following questions: (1) are the results from the two labs consistent? (2) are the uncertainties quoted by the two labs reasonable? We find that any consistent offset between the two labs is negligible, and that the uncertainties may be slightly underestimated.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%