PRINTING.Paper and printer effects on xerographic print quality
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
Abstract This study examines the impact of paper and printer type on the quality of xerographic prints. Ten different uncoated paper substrates were printed using three different commercial xerographic printers. The print quality of the samples (print microgloss, print microgloss nonuniformity, print density, print and gloss mottle, and visual ranking) and the physical and surface characteristics of the papers were measured. It was found that relationship between print mottle and print gloss nonuniformity was dominated by the printer type. While for some printers, these two parameters were positively correlated, in other cases printer appeared to "mask" variations in the paper properties. Multivariate analysis also showed that brightness, opacity, basis weight, 7 5 ° Tappi gloss, and roughness were the top five paper properties that had the most significant effect on the visual ranking and print mottle. Finally, as expected, print roughness was found to be a better predictor of the perceived print quality, however, paper roughness was poorly correlated with the visual ranking of printed samples (R 2 0.5).
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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