Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) has proven to be a major step towards the harmonization of uncertainty evaluation in metrology. Its procedures contain elements from both classical and Bayesian statistics. The recent supplements 1 and 2 to the GUM appear to move the guidelines towards the Bayesian point of view, and they produce a probability distribution that shall encode one's state of knowledge about the measurand. In contrast to a Bayesian uncertainty analysis, however, Bayes' theorem is not applied explicitly. Instead, a distribution is assigned for the input quantities which is then 'propagated' through a model that relates the input quantities to the measurand. The resulting distribution for the measurand may coincide with a distribution obtained by the application of Bayes' theorem, but this is not true in general.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clemens Elster (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: