Conservation process of water-damaged herbarium specimens at the Harvard University Herbaria
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
In December 2009, following an upgrade of the Harvard University Herbaria's heating and cooling system, a pipe burst in one room, resulting in the soaking of specimens in the adjacent cases. The soaked specimens were removed, and the degree of water damage was assessed. The saturated specimens were placed in plastic bags and immediately transferred to a walk-in freezer set at −20°C. Slightly wet specimens were spread out to air dry. Restoration of the frozen specimens involved tests to determine the most effective method for restoring them to usable condition. Test specimens of no scientific value were intentionally soaked, then dried using two procedures: (1) silica gel desiccation and (2) vacuum freeze drying. Freeze-dried specimens did not adhere to each other as much as did those that were dried with silica gel and was the method chosen. Upon their return, the dried specimens were sorted into groups: (1) those that were immediately ready to be returned to the collection, (2) those requiring minor repair, such as reattaching detached labels or plant parts, and (3) those requiring major repair. All specimens were annotated to indicate that they were water damaged and the method of restoration used and then they were returned to the collection.
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 | 0.001 | 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