MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229038722 · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.119584

Evolution of the ultrastructure and polysaccharide composition of flax fibres over time: When history meets science

2022· review· en· W4229038722 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alessia Melelli, Frédéric Jamme, Johnny Beaugrand, Alain Bourmaud

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbohydrate Polymers · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInterregGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCultural heritageCultural historyPolymer scienceHistoryArchaeologyChemistryAnthropologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flax fibres have been used by humans for approximately 10,000 years. With time, the geographic area of production and cultivation has changed, as have the applications of flax fibres; from clothing to sails and paintings from antiquity, to automotive, fashion, and design applications in the contemporary era. The degradation process of flax fibres is the same for both ancient and modern objects made from this polysaccharidic material. This review, focusing on the cultural heritage field, after a brief description of flax plants and fibres, retraces the history of their use through Europe and the Near East, and discusses the evolution of extraction methods with human progress. Furthermore, the most important mechanisms of flax fibre degradation and the characterisation techniques currently in use are described. This study highlights the constructive interchange between engineering and cultural heritage that can be realised through a continuous comparison of antiquity and the contemporary era.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCarbohydrate PolymersSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207