Human factor analysis of error detection and correction in hand-knotted carpet production process
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
Purpose The paper aims to discuss error detection and correction in Kashmiri carpet weaving (KCW), mediated by cryptographic code, Talim which is held to guarantee accurate information transference from designing to weaving, even after hundred years. Yet, carpets often show errors on completion. Design/methodology/approach Human factors analysis revealed error emergence, detection and correction in this practice whose task domains are distributed over large geographies (from in-premises to several kilometers) and timescales (from days to decades). Using prospective observation method, production process of two research carpets from their design, coding and weaving was observed while noting the errors made, identified and corrected by actors in each phase. Findings The errors were found to emerge, identified and corrected during different phases of designing, coding and weaving while giving rise to fresh errors in each phase, due to actors’ normal work routines. Originality/value In view of this, usual branding of “weaver-error” behind flawed carpet turns out to be misplaced value judgment passed in hindsight.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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