Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were: 1) to create a home decorative vetiver seat cushion. 2) To evaluate the received product design (the home decorative vetiver seat cushion), as well as the development process, which covers the research and trial-production improvement by cooperating with vetiver handicraftsmen; furthermore, its procedures consisted of: 1) searching for cultural capital in order to be an inspiration in product design; 2) experimenting to develop the product; 3) summarizing the development procedures; and 4) presenting the result of developed handcraft vetiver sitting-pad model on the following. 1) The identity of handicraftsman community: it should be investigated from the aspect of cultural capital represented by the earthenware shape as well as fabric pattern, 2) the delicate figure and pattern, 3) the usability: the design, size and proportion are suitable and easy to use, 4) the vetiver leaf and production process: the leaves should be tough, strong and hard to be torn; moreover, regarding weaving and finishing the rim, it should be done neatly without visible welded joints, and also 5) the product quality: each part is assembled fixing by leather, inside of the product is attached by cloth as well as filled with leftover fabric. Besides, the sewing should be considerably emphasized the strength to carry weight. In addition, the overall assessment of handcraft vetiver seat cushion model is at a high level.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".