Conservation-Restoration of a Botanical Museum Fluid Collection: Practice and Research
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 The collection of the Botanical Museum of the University of Zürich is an academic collection assembled from 1891 to the end of the 20 th 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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