MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243545642 · doi:10.21611/qirt.2010.046

A Comparison of Near- and Mid-Infrared band reflectography in the diagnostics of artwork

2010· article· en· W4243545642 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Quantitative InfraRed Thermography · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfraredComputer scienceRemote sensingOpticsGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work addresses the important role of conservation science in the pre-restoration diagnostics of paintings. The authors demonstrate how mid-infrared (3-5 m band) methods, namely, Pulse thermography, Pulse Phase thermography and Principal Component thermography, can be used for the analysis of wood-based and canvas-based paintings, illustrating the power of this approach in the detection of delaminations, degraded regions, as well as uncovering scenes which have been painted over (pentimenti). The results of the application of thermographic methods are compared with the results achieved through Near-Infrared reflectography (0.7-1.1 m band) which is recognized as one of most conventional methods for art diagnostics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.249 · 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