MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392167501 · doi:10.5539/ass.v20n2p14

The Impact of Needle Evolution on Embroidery Focus on the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States Periods

2024· article· en· W4392167501 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpring (device)Focus (optics)EngineeringPhysicsStructural engineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different needs and techniques have led to the creation of different tools that act as a bridge between the objects to be processed and the objects to be used, and these tools have influenced the emergence and development of traditional craft civilizations. It is important to note that these tools were created based on specific times and conditions. Taking embroidery needles as a starting point, this paper examines the influence of needle evolution on the progress of needlework during the Spring and Autumn (770-476 BC) and Warring States periods (475- 221 BC), analyzing excavated objects and documentary records and emphasizing the interplay between tools and techniques. The evolution of needle materials, structures and sizes reflects the law of change in response to time, linked not only to the development of productive forces but also to complex and profound social changes.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.227 · 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