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
OBJECTIVE: To compare a new experimental Kodak (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA) F-speed dental X-ray film with Ektaspeed Plus and Ultra-speed. METHODS: The three types of film were exposed and processed under standardized conditions. Values of base plus fog, speed, and film contrast were derived. Resolution was compared by a line-pair plate. RESULTS: Under these experimental conditions, the speed of the new film was just into the F-speed range, and a little over twice as fast as Ultra-speed. The Ektaspeed Plus emulsion was somewhat slower than previously recorded when it was first introduced, but around the centre of the E-speed range. Ektaspeed Plus and the new F-speed film had almost identical film contrasts, the F-speed film having slightly greater contrast in the higher density range. Ultra-speed contrast was marginally greater in the lower density range, but was overtaken by both of the other emulsions at higher densities. All three emulsions had low values of base plus fog. Both E- and F-speed films resolved 10 line-pairs per millimetre well, though both emulsions were inferior to Ultra-speed. CONCLUSIONS: The new F-speed film, since marketed as Insight, provides a further saving in radiation exposure, with no evident deterioration in film contrast or resolution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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