Accuracy and pourability of gypsum preweighed packages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of gypsum provided by the manufacturers in their preweighed packages and to determine the amount of gypsum dispensed from the packages as a function of the method used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty unopened packages from 8 manufacturers were weighed. Ten packages from each manufacturer were opened with the contents completely removed by tapping the packages, and the contents were weighed (thorough method). The other 5 packages from each manufacturer were opened, quickly poured, and the contents weighed (quick method). All packages were then slit open on all sides and completely cleaned. The cleaned packages were then weighed. Calculations were made to determine (1) the amount of gypsum that was "supplied" by the manufacturer and (2) the amount removed from the packages using the "quick" and "thorough" methods. The raw data was normalized to percentage of stated weight. A Welch analysis of variance was used to evaluate the heteroscedastic data at a 95% confidence level. Thereafter, a post hoc Student t test was used to determine if the percentages of stated weight for (1) supplied, (2) thorough, and (3) quick were significantly different from 100%. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found for the amount of gypsum supplied by the manufacturers (p <.001) and the amount of material removed from the packages via the 2 different methods used (p <.001). Seven of the 8 manufacturers' preweighed packages were remarkably close to their stated weight for amounts "supplied" and the "thorough" method. High standard deviations from the mean were found for the "quick" method of gypsum removal. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, results indicate that the use of a "thorough" method to remove gypsum from preweighed packages was important. Ideally, gypsum supplied in preweighed packages should be weighed initially to ensure an optimal water/powder ratio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".