Photochemical colour change for traditional watercolour pigments in low oxygen levels
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
An investigation for light exposure on pigments in low-oxygen environments (in the range 0–5% oxygen) was conducted using a purpose-built automated microfadometer for a large sample set including multiple samples of traditional watercolour pigments from nineteenth-century and twentieth-century sources, selected for concerns over their stability in anoxia. The pigments were prepared for usage in watercolour painting: ground and mixed in gum Arabic and applied to historically accurate gelatine glue-sized cotton and linen-based papers. Anoxia benefited many colorants and no colorant fared worse in anoxia than in air, with the exception of Prussian blue and Prussian green (which contains Prussian blue). A Prussian blue sampled from the studio materials of J.M.W. Turner (1775 − 1851) was microfaded in different environments (normal air (20.9% oxygen) 0, 1, 2, 3.5, or 5% oxygen in nitrogen) and the subsequent dark behaviour was measured. The behaviour of the sample (in normal air, anoxia, and 5% oxygen in nitrogen) proved to be consistent with the 55 separately sourced Prussian blue samples. When exposed to light in 5% oxygen in nitrogen, Prussian blue demonstrated the same light stability as in air (at approximately 21°C and 1 atmosphere). Storage in 5% oxygen is proposed for ‘anoxic’ display of paper-based artworks that might contain Prussian blue, to protect this material while reducing light-induced damage to other components of a watercolour, including organic colorants and the paper support.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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