MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knot‐Tying Habits, Tier Handedness, and Experience*

2010· article· en· W2159513955 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Charles Chisnall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTyingKnot (papermaking)Poison controlPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineMedical emergencyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research concerning tier handedness, experience and the configuration of simple, habitual knots has been scant and conflicting. Survey data were collected from 21 disparate groups comprising 562 respondents in total. Regardless of experience, respondents tied both Granny and Reef Knots. Dextral tying was dominated by S knots. Left-handers tied Z knots more frequently than right-handers. However, the frequency of S and Z knots relative to tier hand dominance, which is not binary, occurred on a continuum. Averaging all survey tasks, more than 70% of knots tied by dextrals were S, whereas only 56% of those tied by sinistrals were S. These percentages varied somewhat according to specific tying tasks and the number of working ends. Furthermore, tiers' shoelace and parcel knots were not always identical, and a ranked pattern in parcel and shoelace knots was revealed. The examination of habitual knots could benefit criminal investigations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207