Sentences with phrase «calibration curve for»

To my mind this could be a starting point for a calibration curve for mechanical stress?

Additional file 1: DLS results / TEM histogram / Calibration curve for sugar quantification / ICP - MS conditions / Carbonyl formation at different concentrations / Extracellular quantification of silver ions.

Not exact matches

I had a Savina placenta sample which of course was miles out of the standard solutions calibration curve range, and using the equation for the line got a result.

Rear - wheel steering remains for the vastly improved agility that it brings, but with a completely different calibration of the response curve.

Transmission BorgWarner four - wheel drive Polestar calibration for more rear torque dynamic distribution Polestar calibrated stability control system 8 - speed Geartronic automatic gearbox with paddle shifters Faster gearshifts Curve - hold functionality Off - throttle functionality Optimized shift precision

If we do this for a series of rings through any given chronology, we can then establish a radiocarbon calibration curve, which allows us to translate any radiocarbon age into a true calendar date.

Moreover, the radiocarbon community has suggested the use of local calibration curves to better account for regional MRE offsets in the heterogeneous ocean reservoir, but a reasonable method for their construction has not yet been proposed.

So in both cases, one can construct a confidence / credible interval for the carbon - 14 age by well - known methods (that exhibit perfect probability matching), and then simply transform the endpoints of this interval to calendar years using the calibration curve (which I'll assume is known exactly, since uncertainty in it doesn't seem to really affect the argument).

The flat spot on the calibration curve represents mean failure time of the widget for a given activity age of catalyst, invariant until the catalyst starts to fail.

The ground - based Windcube has been deployed for wind resource assessment, prototype power curve validation, or site calibration, whereas the nacelle - mounted Wind Iris has been used for wind - turbine performance monitoring or prototype and warranty power curve assessments.

Provided we know the size and shape of the error in that original reading (Normal, log Normal etc) we can generate a spread of random values around our actual reading reflecting what it might be, and then for each of those read off the age that implies, using a table that randomly selects from the (smeared out) calibration curve at that value.

An alternative way of seeing that a noninformative prior for calendar age should be proportional to the derivative of the calibration curve is as follows.

There is a question, however, of whether the prior should be uninformative or informed, since the uniform prior for calendar age leads to a prior for C14 age that is informed by the calibration curve.

Nor is it whether the prior should be subjective or objective, since for this purpose the calibration curve is objective information.

As can be seen, it is very different from the uniform - calendar - year - prior based posterior that would be produced by the OxCal or Calib programs for this 14C determination (if they used this calibration curve).

That's the case in Fig. 1, as the most essential requirement for getting a reasonable confidence interval is to include the whole flat part of the calibration curve or none of that part.

One can think of there being a nonlinear but exact functional calibration curve relationship s14C = c (ti) between calendar year ti and a «standard» 14C age s14C, but with — for each calendar year — the actual (true, not measured) 14C age t14C having a slightly indeterminate relationship with ti.

If the measurement for carbon - 14 age has Gaussian error with standard deviation 100 (as seems about right for Nic's Fig. 2), and the measurement is rounded to one decimal place, and the calibration curve maps calendar age 750 to carbon - 14 age 1000, then the probability of the observation being 1000.0 given that the calendar age is 750 is 0.1 (for one decimal place) times the probability density at 1000 of a Gaussian distribution with mean 1000 and standard deviation 100, which works out to 0.0004.

For this purpose, it would not be necessary to draw true ages from the full prior, but only well on either side of the selected range, in order to accommodate possible observation error and the distortion of the calibration curve.

The radiocarbon determination will be more than two standard deviations (of the combined radiocarbon and calibration uncertainty level) below the exact calibration curve value for the true calendar date in 2.3 % of samples.

An error - free laboratory measurement of modern fraction does not imply that the problem collapses into a deterministic look - up from the calibration curve — even if the curve is monotonic over the relevant calendar interval — because the curve itself carries uncertainty in the form of the variance related to the conditional probability of RC age for a given calendar date.

But it also can't provide conclusive evidence for the calendar year having any other value, unless there's a calendar year for which the calibration curve is nearly vertical, covering the entire range of carbon - 14 ages that are plausible given the measurement.

Suppose for a moment that the hypothetical calibration curve came from costly and time - consuming destructive testing of a critical aeroplane component.

But one question for Nic: How far off is the normalized (f (x)-RRB- where f (x) = g (C (x)-RRB- where C is the calibration curve, g (y) is the pdf for the Radio Determined Age and then the normalized (f) is the pdf for the calendar age, as compared to the Bayesian Posterior using Uniform Prior?

He lays out a proper discretized sample space for the calibration curve which allows him to use Bayes formula, there.

the point on the calibration curve is say, C14age = 2550, CalYear = 800 Now look at the probability measure we have for the C14age interval = 2550 - 3000 that's at least 40 % of the pink paint and the amount of measure we have for the corresponding CalYear interval = 800-3000 That's barely 10 % of the grey paint.

The mish mash being discussed here for the «other techniques» ALSO uses the «uniformly» provided calibration curve.

For both variants of the uniform prior subjective Bayesian method, probability matching is nothing like exact except in the unrealistic case where the sample is drawn equally from the entire calibration range — in which case over-coverage errors in some regions on average cancel out with under - coverage errors in other regions, probably reflecting the near symmetrical form of the stylised overall calibration curve.

Now we find potential SST data that while it may not necessarily change some of the total delta C, it could change the shape of the curves that are used for the calibration period.

The reason for the form here of Jeffreys» prior is fairly clear — where the calibration curve is steep and hence its derivative with respect to calendar age is large, the error probability (red shaded area) between two nearby values of t14C corresponds to a much smaller ti range than when the derivative is small.

Professor Bronk Ramsey considers that knowledge of the radiocarbon calibration curve does give us quantitative information on the prior for 14C «age».

The latter is a value assumed by the laboratory and then accounted for in the calibration curve.

Suppose the transformation from calendar date to 14C age using the calibration curve is effected before the application of Bayes» theorem to the notional observation for a uniform prior.

Not only is the frequentist estimation as good, it is the best and an unbiased estimate.It can even experimentally be proved that it is the best.Same for the calibration curve pdf.

Note that for this computation it is not necessary to know the slope of the calibration curve at calendar age 1000.

The reason given in Briffa 2001 for their selection of a certain reconstruction is discussed: >> > The selection of a single reconstruction of the ALL temperature series is clearly somewhat arbitrary... The method that produces the best fit in the calibration period is principal component regression... << >> ``... we note that the 1450s were much cooler in all of the other (i.e., not PCA regression) methods of producing this curve...» << <

I think that a helpful first step would for the experts to provide a «calibration curve» for the Earth's thermostat.

Then, there's the additional problem with the calibration curve (s) for each instrument and each frequency.