Conservation-Restoration of a Botanical Museum Fluid Collection: Practice and Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The collection of the Botanical Museum of the University of Zürich is an academic collection assembled from 1891 to the end of the 20th century (1992 for the last inventoried item). Preserved plants come from all over the world (40 countries) and include all categories of existing Plantae (algae, lichens, fungi, higher plants, bacteriae). The fluid collection, largely neglected since 1976, shows significant degradation. The main problem is loss of preservative fluid due to leakage of the jars and aging of the seals. Another issue is the discoloration of the specimen fluids. These issues led to a research project titled FLUIDIS, which aimed to explore different preservative solutions and their impact on the discoloration of plant specimens. Conservation-restoration work was carried out on the jars of the “Professor Ernst Collection.” Topping up of was necessary for the entire collection. Restoration was performed after opening the containers and identifying the fluid. The specimens were consolidated, repaired, and mounted when necessary, then gradually put back into alcoholic solutions and finally sealed. An overall intervention protocol was established for the treatment of the entire botanical fluid collection. Its application, however, requires a careful study of each specimen.
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 | 0.033 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".