A Wearable Textile Thermograph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In medicine, temperature changes can indicate important underlying pathologies such as wound infection. While thermographs for the detection of wound infection exist, a textile substrate offers a preferable solution to the designs that exist in the literature, as a textile is very comfortable to wear. This work presents a fully textile, wearable, thermograph created using temperature-sensing yarns. As described in earlier work, temperature-sensing yarns are constructed by encapsulating an off-the-shelf thermistor into a polymer resin micro-pod and then embedding this within the fibres of a yarn. This process creates a temperature-sensing yarn that is conformal, drapeable, mechanically resilient, and washable. This work first explored a refined yarn design and characterised its accuracy to take absolute temperature measurements. The influence of contact errors with the refined yarns was explored seeing a 0.24 ± 0.03 measurement error when the yarn was held just 0.5 mm away from the surface being measured. Subsequently, yarns were used to create a thermograph. This work characterises the operation of the thermograph under a variety of simulated conditions to better understand the functionality of this type of textile temperature sensor. Ambient temperature, insulating material, humidity, moisture, bending, compression and stretch were all explored. This work is an expansion of an article published in The 4th International Conference on Sensor and Applications.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".