MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation of converging and collimated beam instrument geometry on specular gloss measurements

2018· article· en· W2794426661 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterial Properties and Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGloss (optics)Specular reflectionCollimated lightOpticsSpecular highlightMaterials sciencePhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specular gloss is an important appearance property of a wide variety of manufactured goods. Depending upon the application, e.g. paints, paper, ceramics, etc. different instrument designs and measurement geometries are specified in standard test methods. For a given specular angle, these instrument designs can be broadly classified as converging beam (TAPPI method) and collimated beam (DIN method). In recent comparisons of specular gloss measurements using different glossmeters, very large standard deviations have been reported, well exceeding the manufacturers claims. In this paper, we investigate the effect of instrument beam geometry on gloss measurements. These results indicate that this difference in beam geometry can give the magnitude of gloss differences reported in these comparisons and highlights the importance of educating the user community of best measurement practices and obtaining appropriate traceability for their glossmeters.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.169 · 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