MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966857872 · doi:10.5479/si.1949-2367.9

Aluminum: History, Technology, and Conservation

2019· article· en· W2966857872 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSmithsonian contributions to museum conservation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
FundersFoundation of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic WorksNational Air and Space MuseumSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsSculptureArchaeologyInstitutionConservationLibrary scienceEngineeringHistoryVisual artsPolitical scienceGeographyArtComputer scienceEnvironmental planningLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current volume brings together papers presented at the 2014 “Aluminum: History, Technology and Conservation” conference held at the Smithsonian Institution’s American Art Museum; the conference was followed by a hands-on workshop held at the National Air and Space Museum’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, which utilized the museum’s collections to illustrate aluminum’s use, conservation challenges, and repair techniques as well as to introduce participants to analytical techniques such as X-ray fluorescence for the identification of aluminum alloys and finishes. The three day international conference and two-day workshop were co-hosted with the Smithsonian Institution, the Foundation for the American Institute for Conservation and the International Council of Museums Committee for Conservation Metals Working Group. An unprecedented group of speakers, organizers, and sponsors made possible the first ever conservation conference solely dedicated to aluminum. The conference featured presentations by twenty-seven speakers from Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America who explored various aspects of degradation phenomena and conservation strategies for aluminum objects, from sculpture to aircraft, from nineteenth-century jewelry to underwater archaeological objects. The proceedings are divided into eight categories and represent the various themed sessions: the history and manufacturing of aluminum, corrosion and deterioration, characterization and identification, conservation of archaeological objects, conservation and use in contemporary art, conservation of architectural elements, surface treatments and inhibition, and preventative conservation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmithsonian contributions to museum conservationSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207