MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100937452 · doi:10.1515/rest.2002.89

Thermal Accelerated Ageing Test Method Development

2002· article· en· W2100937452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Bégin, Emilia Kamińska

Bibliographic record

VenueRestaurator International Journal for the Preservation of Library and Archival Material · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgeingTest (biology)Computer scienceEngineeringMedicineGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARIES A study of the thermal ageing of paper was undertaken jointly by the U.S. Library of Congress (LOC) and the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) as part of the ASTM/ISR Research Program on the Effects of Ageing on Printing and Writing Papers. An overview of the CCI's part of the project and the joint CCI/LOC recommendations for an accelerated ageing test are provided. Advantages and limitations of the proposed test protocol are also discussed. Une étude relative au vieillissement du papier accéléré par la chaleur a été faite conjointement par le U.S. Library of Congress (LOC) et l'Institut canadien de conservation (CCI) dans le cadre d'un programme de recherche ASTM/ISR sur les effets du vieillissement sur des papiers à écrire et à imprimer. On donne un aperçu sur l'étude réalisée par l'Institut canadien de conservation et on communique également les recommandations conjointes du CCI/LOC concernant le test de vieillissement artificiel. Les avantages et les limites du test proposé font l'objet d'une discussion. Als Teil eines Forschungsprogramms des US Institut für Normenforschung in der Gesellschaft für Materialuntersuchung zur Wirkung einer Alterung auf Druck- und Schreibpapier haben die Library of Congress und das kanadische Konservierungsinstitut eine Untersuchung über die Hitzealterung durchgeführt. Es wird ein Überblick über den vom kanadischen Konservierungsinstitut erbrachten Anteil gegeben, und es werden die von beiden Partnern erarbeiteten Empfehlungen zur beschleunigten Alterung sowohl mitgeteilt als auch nach ihren Vor- und Nachteilen diskutiert.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.012

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations42
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRestaurator International Journal for the Preservation of Library and Archival MaterialSame topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207