MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605652381 · doi:10.1186/s40494-017-0135-4

Automated displacement measurements on historical canvases

2017· article· en· W2605652381 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHeritage Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsDisplacement (psychology)Artifact (error)Computer scienceComputer visionPhotogrammetryArtificial intelligenceTriangulationLaserPlanarMaterials scienceComputer graphics (images)OpticsPhysicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In this paper we describe a configurable system based on laser displacement sensors for the contactless acquisition of 3D and 2D shapes of near-planar objects such as the paintings. Methods The system is based on two single-point laser triangulation sensors, a planar robot and a suite of software for driving the sensors, acquiring and post-processing the collected data. As a demonstration of the developed system we monitored three artifacts with the different aims to monitor the elastic properties of the artworks and the effectiveness of support frames in compensating the micro-climate fluctuations: the “Annunciazione” Antonello da Messina, the “Paliotto di San Domenico”, and the “Portiera Oddi-Montesperelli”. Results In the “Annunciazione” case, the canvas response to tensioning trials was analyzed. The collected data permitted to quantify a maximum displacement of 0.9 and 1.5 mm for the tensioning tests at 1 and 2 mm, respectively. In the “Portiera” case, the displacement difference between the left and right canvas sides was (1.0 ± 0.13)%, due to the inherent anisotropy of the material and by the structure of the artifact. In the “Paliotto” case, instead, minor displacement variations of the gilt leather due to the environment were observed, due to the analysis conducted prior of the restoration. Conclusions The overall obtained results demonstrated that the system is able to provide useful data for the art conservation field, with a max inaccuracy less than 100 μm.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.197 · 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