MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099769875 · doi:10.1177/0887302x0402200103

In the Bag: Contact Natural Dyes

2004· article· en· W2099769875 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClothing and Textiles Research Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDyeing and Modifying Textile Fibers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyeingMordantNatural dyeWaste managementMaterials sciencePulp and paper industryProcess engineeringEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contact dyeing is a practical alternative to the more common immersion method of natural dyeing. Contact dyeing is a very low liquor ratio method where the actual natural dyestuff is placed around and between the goods to be dyed. The dyestuff and goods are compressed into a bundle that is placed in a plastic bag and heated by using steam, a microwave oven, or solar energy. The focus in most dyeing is on duplication and replication of color and motif. In contact dyeing, the focus is shifted to use of innovative materials such as organic waste, found objects, and pantry or kitchen items. Appropriate dyestuffs, materials, and equipment are described, but specific results are unpredictable. This chance factor is the primary goal in contact natural dyeing: to create complex, random patterns and colors easily and inexpensively, without the use of chemical mordants that are used with immersion natural dye methods.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.294 · 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