A comparative study on security features of excise stamp of Nepal, Russia, Canada, India, European Union and USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following review paper is titled Security features present in excise stamp (tobacco and liquor). The following features are discussed in the paper-Two-toned watermark, Security fibres, Stamp foil, Security thread, Polarised filter, Color shift ink, Serial number, Anti peeling feature, Background image, Anti photocopying feature, Intaglio printing, UV-Visible ink, Quadro-fluorescent ink, Jura ICI feature, IR ink, Micro text, Machine detectable feature, Guilloche pattern, Bi fluorescent ink, Hologram, Hidden text and QR code. Six different countries were undertaken- Nepal, Russia, Canada, India, European Union and the USA, security features present in their excise stamps were put in the form of a rubrics table. Out of 22 security features, it was found that Nepal had the maximum number of security features 14 out of 22 features present, namely- Security fibres, Serial number, Anti peeling feature, Background image, Intaglio printing, UV-Visible ink, IR ink, Micro text, Machine detectable feature, Guilloche pattern, Hidden text, Bi fluorescent ink, Hologram and QR code. European Union followed 13 out of 22 features present, namely, Security Fibres, Stamp foil, Serial number, Background image, UV-Visible ink, Quadro fluorescent ink, Jura ICI feature, IR ink, Micro text, Machine Detectable features, Guilloche pattern, Hologram and QR code. Russia is coming next with 12 out of 22 features, namely- Two toned watermark, Security fibres, Stamp foil, Security thread, Polarised filter, Color shift ink, Serial number, Background image, UV-Visible ink, Micro text, Hologram and QR code. Followed by India with 10 out of 22 features: Stamp foil, Serial number, Anti peeling feature, Background image, intaglio printing, Micro text, Machine detectable feature, Guilloche pattern, Hologram and QR code. Canada is coming next with 8 out of 22 features, namely- Color shift ink, Serial number, Background image, Anti photocopying feature, Intaglio printing, UV-Visible printing, Micro text and Guilloche pattern. Lastly, the USA has 6 out of 22 features: Polarised filter, Color shift ink, Serial number Anti peeling feature, Background image and Micro text.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".