{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009283819628647215, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.508620689655173, '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}}
The problem of applying modern uncertainty concepts to the measurement of instrument specific parameters

This paper present discusses a number of problems that occurs when implementing GUM to modern instruments. These are often automatic which makes it difficult to evaluate the uncertainty components in each measurement step, since it is difficult to control and analyses them. Many of these instruments try to quantify instrument specific parameters, parameters that are difficult to compare with other ones having the same dimension but being measured with another technique. Often these parameters lack traceable calibration which may result in a sizeable uncertainty component. This article also includes the human part of the measurement process.