MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083562516 · doi:10.1177/004051750207200809

Differentiating Fine Hairs from Wild and Domestic Species: Investigations of Shatoosh, Yangir, and Cashmere Fibers

2002· article· en· W2083562516 on OpenAlexaff
Claudio Tonin, Michela Bianchetto, Claudia Vineis, Marco Festa Bianchet

Bibliographic record

VenueTextile Research Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspeciesEndangered speciesTrophyBiologyFiberWild boarZoologyGeographyEcologyMaterials scienceHabitatArchaeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fine undercoat fibers removed from wild goats hunted for meat and trophy, principally belonging to subspecies of Capra ibex, are used as an alternative to Shatoosh, the hair of the endangered Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii). Although currently legal, the large-scale use of these fibers (known as "Yangir"), and hybridization of ibex with domestic goats to improve fiber fineness and yield, would severely threaten the conservation of wild ibex. A SEM investigation shows morphological differences in the cuticle cell patterns of fine fibers from the domestic Cashmere goat, the wild Yangir goat, and the Tibetan antelope. A study of the DSC traces reveals differences in the enthalpy of denaturation of the crystallites. This information enables identification of these fibers, including those from lots submitted to dehairing processes, such as are commonly found in the animal fiber trade.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTextile Research JournalSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207