<title>Fundamental questions on print quality</title>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of print quality is elusive, since it depends on objective measurable quantities such as contrast, graininess, etc., but also on the subjective appreciation of potential observers. It is far from obvious that print quality (PQ) can be defined in terms of good or bad, so that every one will agree on this definition, and the question of its measurement, with objective and subjective measures, remains open. In this Communication, we would first like to propose a set of fundamental questions related to the definition and measurement of PQ. Specifically, we are interested in the definition of PQ in terms of quality concept and quality criteria, on the minimal dimension space of PQ, and on the functional relations that should be satisfied by the metrics of PQ. In the second part, we focus on the simpler case of print mottle and try to answer some of these questions. We show that wavelet transforms can be used to obtain a measure of PQ that correlates very well with the subjective evaluation of observers and use this measure to discuss the functional form of a metric of Print Quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it