MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801022556 · doi:10.1177/0887302x18772099

Synthetic Clothing and the Problem With Odor

2018· article· en· W2801022556 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueClothing and Textiles Research Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsOdorPolyesterIntensity (physics)Composite materialNylon 6Materials scienceNylon 66ClothingChemistryPolymerOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although polyester is well known for smelling strongly after wear, little is known about the propensity of nylon to retain and emit body odor. In this study, we investigated whether odor intensity differed between nylon and polyester fabrics. A secondary aim was to compare odor on fabrics frozen prior to sensory assessment with fabrics stored at room temperature. Eight participants wore T-shirts with fabrics in the underarm. Odor intensity was rated by 13 assessors. Odor reduction rate (ORR) was measured using ISO 17299-3. Overall, no differences were found in odor intensity between nylon and polyester. Any differences found between the two fabrics were likely dependent on the individual who wore the fabric. The ORR was higher for nylon than polyester, indicating that nylon absorbed more odorants. There was some evidence to suggest that odor intensity could increase on nylon fabrics stored at room temperature, but this was less apparent for polyester.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.301 · 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