The Stability Appraisement on Cultural Property Material with the Replacing Fumigation Gas of Methyl Bromide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methyl Bromide that was used as fumigation gas turned out to be the substance of destroying the ozone layer. For that reason, at the Montreal Protocol in 1987 the use of methyl bromide was forbidden starting 2005 in the advanced country. Also according to the 2007 Bali Protocolly methyl bromide is expected to be forbidden and therefore the purpose of this study is to find out the effects of substitution fumigation gas (Ethylene Oxide+HFC 134a, Methyl Iodide, Cyanogen and Argon) on the metal(silver, copper and iron), wood(oregon pine), pigment(yellow, red, blue, white and black), textile(hemp, ramie, jute, silk1 and silk2 / indigo, safflower and cork) and paper. After the fumigation test, ethylene oxide+HFC 134a did not have changes in the weight and color of the material itself before and after the experiment. On exterior alteration, color change occurred partly on paper and metal. Also, in most materials color change extent was 0.5 to 1.5 on the average and showed scanty difference. The materials after the fumigation test with methyl iodide did not show weight changes after the test. However, color changes more than 1.0 was shown in most of the materials especially in dyed textile material. In blue pigment, the discoloration on the surface could be seen by naked eyes. Fumigation test with cyanogen gas did not show weight changes and discoloration is more than 1.5 before and after the test. The weight changes of test materials with the argon gas was decreased about 3 to 6%. It can be observed that discoloration on paper was generated. Color changes can be seen on jute dyed with safflower and cork for two weeks with argon gas and the extent was 6.3 and 6.0.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".