MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W165386605

Evaluation of 5-Methylthioninhydrin for the Detection of Fingermarks on Porous Surfaces and Comparison

2006· article· en· W165386605 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorosityMaterials scienceComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chemical 5-methylthioninhydrin was developed in the early 1990s for treating fingermarks on porous surfaces. Although many researchers showed the promise of this chemical during the years between 1990 and 1997, current research indicates that this reagent is sill not commonly used in casework. The current study assessed the commercially produced 5-methylthioninhydrin and compared it to the more commonly used reagents for detecting fingermarks on porous surfaces. The study found that 5-methylthioninhydrin is superior to ninhydrin; however, 1,2-indanedione produced a much stronger luminescence when used to treat latent fingermarks. Comparable fluorescence was produced with 5-methlthioninhydrin after metal salt treatment to DFO; the high background detracts from the ridge detail, however. The study concludes that although the cost of 5-methylthioninhydrin is higher than for conventional reagents, its use may be justified in some circumstances. The second article begins with an illustrated step-by-step demonstration of the technique for blending two exposures of the same scene. It involves the use of layers within Adobe Photoshop CS and then placing one exposure overtop of another exposure. The best qualities of each exposure are then used in the final print. The article then examines a few applied forensic applications of the blending of two exposures, including a technique for rescuing underexposed images. This issues section on Society Business (Canadian Identification Society) addresses Society awards, the Presidents message," the 29th CIS Educational Conference, guidelines for authors, a listing of award winners and past presidents, and a listing of staff members

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it