Straw Rope Furniture Design by Macramé Techniques for Housing Decorations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this research were (1) to design at least 5 styles of straw rope furniture by macramé techniques for housing decorations; (2) to evaluate the straw rope furniture prototypes produced by macramé techniques based on the community products standard criteria. Development stages were employed as the research processes; which are development of furniture prototypes (State 1), experiment of innovation (Stage 2), and conclusion of experiments/ report writing (stage 3). The results offered the straw rope furniture prototypes based on macramé techniques for housing decorations on the following criteria. (1) General features should present fineness, beautiful style and shape, proper functional size without any damage (no distortion nor bending, no prominent seam nor burning mark on straw rope). (2) The straw ropes should be strong and durable and be uniformed size. (3) Weaving, intertwining, binding, and knotting should be formed in even spaces and patterns without any overhanging nor projecting rope ends. (4) Assembly should be neatly aligned between each seam without broken seams. (5) Other combined materials should be neat, tightly fastened, durable, and fit in harmony with function and work piece; additionally, metal materials should be stainless. (6) Varnishing should be smooth and even without any damage (no spot, no stain, no brittle, no fracture, no flake, nor peel) and not too thick Evaluation results of the furniture suggested excellent level in every aspect of these criteria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".