MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enzymatic Pretreatment during 15th to 18th Century Papermaking in Europe

2016· article· en· W2254352512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy J. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPapermakingRettingFermentationPulp and paper industryCelluloseChemistryPolymer scienceEngineeringFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enzymatic pretreatment of cellulose is generally considered to be a new area of research, but in fact it was a standard step in European pre-industrial papermaking between 1300 and 1800. Specialized handmade papers are routinely prepared in our Center for use in the care and conservation of rare books and manuscripts. Our attempts to replicate some of the early papers have led us to an investigation of retting (or fermentation) of hemp and cotton fiber as a pre-beating step. Results of twenty-two production runs show that increased fermentation time gives increased Canadian Standard Freeness and improved formation quality while permitting a decrease in beating time.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207