Visual and optical evaluation of bank notes in circulation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method for comparing quality of bank notes in circulation based on both a subjective visual sorting technique and on quantitative wear evaluations is described and applied to circulated Canadian bank notes. The sample notes, which were part of a $5 circulation trial, issued over a 4 to 6 week period, had been in circulation for roughly 6 months. Notes were first sorted visually into four defined substrate categories (No Edge Wear, Corner Folds, Minimal Edge Wear and Edge Wear) and four surface wear categories (None, Low, Medium and High). Samples of each category were tested at Crane and Co. using a range of physical and optical techniques: air resistance, air permeability, stiffness deflection, double folds, gray scale, brightness, perimeter length, and top/bottom mean and maximum deviations. The visual sort showed that neither soiling nor ink loss are the major wear problems for bank notes in Canada. However, the substrate does become tattered and worn. The mechanical and optical wear tests show that most of the parameters change logically as the soil level increases. The changes for other parameters are less clear as a function of wear categories, but are relatively consistent in distinguishing between the No Edge Wear and Edge Wear. Impact of wear on the effectiveness of security features will also be described.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it