MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245949522 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14653185.v1

Unboxing Nelvana: animation cel preservation and storage for the Nelvana animation collection

2021· preprint· en· W4245949522 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Tinker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationComputer scienceComputer animationComputer graphics (images)MultimediaWorld Wide WebVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With no concrete preservation practices in place, the conservation and preservation of animation cels is a challenge for the stewards of animation-related collections. Characterized as mixed media artefacts, animation cels fall somewhere between illustrative art and motion picture film, which partially accounts for the lack of defined guidelines. Studies researching the conservation of animation cels, such as the one conducted by the Getty Conservation Institute in collaboration with the Disney Animation Research Library are so recent that, to date, no conclusive findings have been established. This practical report focuses on the organization, conservation, and storage of the Nelvana Animation Collection housed at Media Commons, University of Toronto Libraries. The information and recommendations provided within are intended as a guide for approaching animation cel care and conservation following “best known practices.” These practices include currently adopted methods of cel conservation, as well as techniques borrowed from the conservation practices of similar objects.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1060.030

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207