USING MICROFOCUS X-RADIOGRAPHY AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO CREATE A DIGITAL WATERMARK DATABASE
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
The watermark in a sheet of paper can be the key to valuable information for art and paper historians, forensic scientists and paper conservators. Difficulties resulting from the number of watermark images and the methods used to record them have resulted in this becoming a much under-used resource. The Conservation Unit and the Institute for Image Data Research at University of Northumbria, Newcastle have reevaluated the use of watermarks in terms of paper history and conservation, and established an archive of watermark images and related information which can be accessed by content based image retrieval (CBIR). This paper presents a discussion of the radiographic techniques used for recording watermarks for digitization and image retrieval, and the practical utility and value of grenz microfocus X-radiography for the analysis of watermarks and paper. A number of films and developers are evaluated for image quality. Alternatives to X-ray-specific films and chemistry are suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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