MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124799583 · doi:10.1080/15569520500536600

Textiles and Human Skin, Microclimate, Cutaneous Reactions: An Overview

2006· review· en· W2124799583 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

VenueCutaneous and Ocular Toxicology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDermatologyClothingIrritationDrynessSkin irritationTextileHuman skinMicroclimateMedicineBlistersSurgeryMaterials scienceBiologyComposite materialEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article overviews research in the interdisciplinary area of textile/skin interaction and related cutaneous intolerance. Microclimate in the skin/clothing system and especially the skin responses relates to the moisture and heat transfer within this system and plays a critical role in skin irritation from textiles. A discussion is then given on skin irritation reactions to textiles, including intolerance caused by chemicals (dyes and finishes) and physical contact/friction. Finally, two skin injuries, blisters and pressure ulcers, which are caused by physical contact, pressure, and friction, are documented. Despite the prevalent problems caused by ill textile/skin interactions, minimal efforts have been devoted to this field. In addition, the in vivo experimental studies infrequently lead to a solid conclusion. The cause may lie in the dramatic variation of skin conditions among individuals as well as among different anatomic sites of the same person. Another reason might be the lack of communications between researchers in the areas of textiles and dermatology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.296 · 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