{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0290846877673225, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005988023952095809, 'mean_word_length': 5.190476190476191, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is the End of the “Calibration Problem” in Sight?

The “Calibration Problem” is the real or perceived difficulty in introducing near infrared (NIR) methods because of the complexity of the calibration procedure. It was most graphically demonstrated by Rosenthal and Williams1 at NIR-95 in Montréal, Canada in 1995. Bob Rosenthal sent out a questionnaire to two groups of NIR spectroscopic practitioners in the NIR community: users and researchers and he and Phil Williams analysed the answers. One of the questions was: “What do you think are the major current limitations of NIR instruments?” There was then a list of five possible answers (summarised as speed, sensitivity, calibration, versatility, expense and other [specify]). The two groups gave very similar answers. Size of instruments was the only “other” to be suggested by a few correspondents and expense and calibration were the two factors highlighted by the majority with calibration scoring almost twice that of expense. If more instruments were sold they would undoubtedly be less expensive, which leaves “Calibration” as the most significant problem preventing the more rapid spread of NIR technology.