MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969230571 · doi:10.5539/mas.v4n3p71

Comparison of Two Different Yarn Evenness Test Methods

2010· article· en· W1969230571 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dairong Zhang, Ling Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies evennessYarnTextileComputer scienceMathematicsComposite materialMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evenness of yarn is an important index of quality control of textiles, so the researches about the yarn evenness test method have been the hotspot in the textile measurement for recent years. In this article, two main yarn evenness testing methods including the Uster method and the CTT (Constant Tension Transport) method which are important in the present textile industry are compared and studied. Though comparing and analyzing the testing principles of two methods, adopting the method of statistical analysis to correlatively analyze the testing data obtaining from two different testing measures, the method of CTT can more visually and exactly describe the appearance quality of yarns.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207