The metric system of measurement (SI).

Supersedes similar notice dated Dec. 10, 1976.

Metric implementation guide : implementing the metric system in health occupations /

Bibliography: p. 50.

Vestiges of pre-metric weights and measures persisting in metric-system Europe, 1926-1927.

Half-title: Bureau of international research, Harvard university and Radcliffe college.

A concise summary of the International System of Units, the SI

The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, the BIPM, was established by Article 1 of the Convention du Mètre, on 20 May 1875, and is charged with providing the basis for a single, coherent system of measurements to be used throughout the world. The decimal metric system, dating from the time of the French Revolution, was based on the metre and the kilogram. Under the terms of the 1875 Convention, new international prototypes of the metre and kilogram were made and formally adopted by the first Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) in 1889. Over time this system developed, so that it now includes seven base units. In 1960 it was decided at the 11th CGPM that it should be called the Système International d’Unités, the SI (in English: the International System of Units). The SI is not static but evolves to match the world’s increasingly demanding requirements for measurements at all levels of precision and in all areas of science, technology, and human endeavour. This document is a summary of the SI Brochure, a publication of the BIPM which is a statement of the current status of the SI. The seven base units of the SI, listed in Table 1, provide the reference used to define all the measurement units of the International System. As science advances, and methods of measurement are refined, their definitions have to be revised. The more accurate the measurements, the greater the care required in the realization of the units of measurement.

The selection of preferred metric values for design and construction /

Sponsored by Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy.

U.S. metric study interim report : international trade /

"Eighth in a series of reports prepared for the Congress."

The international system of units (SI).

1974 ed. edited by C. H. Page and P. Vigoureux.

Metric conversion in the construction industries--technical issues and status /

Mode of access: Internet.

U.S. metric study report

Mode of access: Internet.

Units of weight and measure (United States customary and metric). Definitions and tables of equivalents.

Vol. for 1914 has supplement (publ. 1917).

Providing a metric option : can laws and regulations be amended in a timely manner?

Item 1089

Going metric--is it for you? : a planning model for small manufacturing companies.

Mode of access: Internet.

All about metric.

Mode of access: Internet.

Pitfalls of artificial grouping and stratification of scientific journals based on their Impact Factor: a case study in Brazilian Zoology

The present contribution explores the impact of the QUALIS metric system for academic evaluation implemented by CAPES (Coordination for the Development of Personnel in Higher Education) upon Brazilian Zoological research. The QUALIS system is based on the grouping and ranking of scientific journals according to their Impact Factor (IF). We examined two main points implied by this system, namely: 1) its reliability as a guideline for authors; 2) if Zoology possesses the same publication profile as Botany and Oceanography, three fields of knowledge grouped by CAPES under the subarea "BOZ" for purposes of evaluation. Additionally, we tested CAPES' recent suggestion that the area of Ecology would represent a fourth field of research compatible with the former three. Our results indicate that this system of classification is inappropriate as a guideline for publication improvement, with approximately one third of the journals changing their strata between years. We also demonstrate that the citation profile of Zoology is distinct from those of Botany and Oceanography. Finally, we show that Ecology shows an IF that is significantly different from those of Botany, Oceanography, and Zoology, and that grouping these fields together would be particularly detrimental to Zoology. We conclude that the use of only one parameter of analysis for the stratification of journals, i.e., the Impact Factor calculated for a comparatively small number of journals, fails to evaluate with accuracy the pattern of publication present in Zoology, Botany, and Oceanography. While such simplified procedure might appeals to our sense of objectivity, it dismisses any real attempt to evaluate with clarity the merit embedded in at least three very distinct aspects of scientific practice, namely: productivity, quality, and specificity.