Natural History Wet Collections: Observations on PH Readings from the Use of Different Ethanol and Label Types
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined the effects of different types of specimen labels and tags on pH of different concentrations of ethanol typically used for fluid preservation in natural history collections. Labels were immersed in three different concentrations of ethanol, 96% pure undenatured ethanol (EtOH), 96% EtOH denatured with methyl-ethyl ketone (MEK), and 99.8% pure undenatured EtOH, with or without the presence of insect specimens, and the solutions were evaluated after 26 months for changes over time in pH reading. In general, pH readings of all label trials with 96% and 99.8% ethanol increased over time, except for trials of denatured alcohol, which demonstrated lower pH readings in almost all treatments, regardless of label type. Samples that contained labels with ordinary, nonstandardized, not explicitly acid-free printing paper had higher pH readings compared after the trial. Our observations are a good starting point for further experiments to answer research questions related to chemical interactions with labels in ethanol-preserved specimens, including tissue samples for molecular analyses, which can guide collection staff in their daily work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it