Beneficial effect of gelatin on iron gall ink corrosion
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 Iron gall Inks corrosion causes paper degradation (browning, embrittlement) and treatments were developed to tackle this issue. They often include resizing with gelatin to reinforce the paper and its cellulosic fibers (of diameter approx. 10 µm). This work aimed at measuring the distribution of ink components at the scale of individual paper fibers so as to give a better understanding of the impact of gelatin (re-)sizing on iron gall ink corrosion. For this purpose, scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM) was used at the Canadian light source synchrotron (CLS, Saskatoon). This technique combines nano-scale mapping (resolution of 30 nm) and near edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) analysis. Fe L-edge measurements enabled to map iron distribution and to locate iron(II) and iron(III) rich areas. N K-edge measurement made it possible to map gelatin distribution. C K-edge measurements allowed mapping and discrimination of cellulose, gallic acid, iron gall ink precipitate and gelatin. Three fibers were studied: an inked fiber with no size, a sized fiber that was afterwards inked and an inked fiber sprayed with gelatin. Analysis of gelatin and ink ingredients distribution indicated a lower amount of iron inside the treated cellulosic fiber, which may explain the beneficial effect of gelatin on iron gall ink corrosion .
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) | 0.004 | 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