234
produced by measurement is supposed to be transferable, i.e., usable in the time and
place in which it was obtained (and not all the relevant properties might be known
in that moment), the issue arises of defining the measurand in a sufficiently specific
way so as to make the information transferable without losing the reference to the
measurand. Definitional uncertainty is the related component of uncertainty, and
where it is quantifiable, it can be incorporated into the uncertainty budget.
Second, considering interaction uncertainty, while the object under measurement
needs to change the state of the measuring instrument (thus resulting in a transduced
property) for a measurement to take place, the opposite effect also sometimes happens, with the consequence that the object under measurement also changes its
state, and then possibly the property under measurement changes in turn, due to its
interaction with the instrument. The result is a loss of objectivity, which may be
quantified by interaction uncertainty.
Third, considering instrumental uncertainty, the measuring instrument is generally sensitive not only to the measurand but also to other properties (the influence
properties, as discussed in Sect. 7.2.2), with the consequence that its output depends
also on such properties: since the information produced by measurement is supposed to be usable independently of the instrument by which it was obtained, the
issue arises of characterizing the instrument behavior in a sufficiently specific way
so as to make it possible to extract information on the measurand by filtering out the
spurious information generated by influence properties. In Sect. 3.2.1 the metrological behavior of an instrument is characterized in terms of its accuracy, and then
more specific features such as trueness and precision. When reported in terms of
measurement results, this component of objectivity may be quantified by means of
instrumental uncertainty.
Subject independence (“intersubjectivity” for short) takes into account the goal
that the conveyed information be interpretable in the same way by different persons
in different places and times. This requires that the information produced by measurement is reported in a way that is independent of the specific context and only
refers to universally accessible entities, so that in principle its meaning can be
unambiguously reconstructed by anyone. Metrological systems, including quantity
units realized by measurement standards disseminated through traceability chains,
are developed and maintained to fulfill this requirement. The appropriate calibration
of the measuring instrument guarantees the metrological traceability of the information it produces, and therefore the condition of intersubjectivity. Calibration uncertainty, which includes all uncertainties related to the definition of the public scales
and their realizations in the measurement standards in the traceability chain, is then
what may quantify intersubjectivity.
The characterization of measurement in terms of objectivity and intersubjectivity
26
is relevant for both users and designers:
26 Sometimes the distinction between objectivity and intersubjectivity is not maintained, and they
are conflated in a single concept of. An explicit example is: “A highly disciplined
discourse helps to produce knowledge independent of the particular people who make it. This last
phrase points to my working definition of objectivity. It is, from the philosophical standpoint, a
7 Modeling measurement and its quality
produced by measurement is supposed to be transferable, i.e., usable in the time and
place in which it was obtained (and not all the relevant properties might be known
in that moment), the issue arises of defining the measurand in a sufficiently specific
way so as to make the information transferable without losing the reference to the
measurand. Definitional uncertainty is the related component of uncertainty, and
where it is quantifiable, it can be incorporated into the uncertainty budget.
Second, considering interaction uncertainty, while the object under measurement
needs to change the state of the measuring instrument (thus resulting in a transduced
property) for a measurement to take place, the opposite effect also sometimes happens, with the consequence that the object under measurement also changes its
state, and then possibly the property under measurement changes in turn, due to its
interaction with the instrument. The result is a loss of objectivity, which may be
quantified by interaction uncertainty.
Third, considering instrumental uncertainty, the measuring instrument is generally sensitive not only to the measurand but also to other properties (the influence
properties, as discussed in Sect. 7.2.2), with the consequence that its output depends
also on such properties: since the information produced by measurement is supposed to be usable independently of the instrument by which it was obtained, the
issue arises of characterizing the instrument behavior in a sufficiently specific way
so as to make it possible to extract information on the measurand by filtering out the
spurious information generated by influence properties. In Sect. 3.2.1 the metrological behavior of an instrument is characterized in terms of its accuracy, and then
more specific features such as trueness and precision. When reported in terms of
measurement results, this component of objectivity may be quantified by means of
instrumental uncertainty.
Subject independence (“intersubjectivity” for short) takes into account the goal
that the conveyed information be interpretable in the same way by different persons
in different places and times. This requires that the information produced by measurement is reported in a way that is independent of the specific context and only
refers to universally accessible entities, so that in principle its meaning can be
unambiguously reconstructed by anyone. Metrological systems, including quantity
units realized by measurement standards disseminated through traceability chains,
are developed and maintained to fulfill this requirement. The appropriate calibration
of the measuring instrument guarantees the metrological traceability of the information it produces, and therefore the condition of intersubjectivity. Calibration uncertainty, which includes all uncertainties related to the definition of the public scales
and their realizations in the measurement standards in the traceability chain, is then
what may quantify intersubjectivity.
The characterization of measurement in terms of objectivity and intersubjectivity
26
is relevant for both users and designers:
26 Sometimes the distinction between objectivity and intersubjectivity is not maintained, and they
are conflated in a single concept of
discourse helps to produce knowledge independent of the particular people who make it. This last
phrase points to my working definition of objectivity. It is, from the philosophical standpoint, a
7 Modeling measurement and its quality