MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409703753 · doi:10.1088/2051-672x/adcf8d

Surface characterization of Asian lacquers using surface metrology and data science: introducing the roughness spectrum

2025· article· en· W4409703753 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Ravines, H. David Sheets, Marianne Webb, Joy Mazurek, Michael Schilling, Herant Khanjian

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface Topography Metrology and Properties · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsPublic Works and Government Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetrologySurface roughnessCharacterization (materials science)Surface (topology)Surface finishSurface metrologyEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceNanotechnologyOpticsPhysicsProfilometerMetallurgyComposite materialGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A quantitative approach to the study of Asian lacquer surfaces combining non-contact, non-invasive, and non-destructive surface metrology and data science techniques is presented. The lacquers within this artistic tradition–laccol, thitsi, and urushi– combined with various additives possess quantifiable differences in the surface texture/topography that may be used to detect and identify a lacquer type from non-perturbing/contact measurements. This study examined laccol, thitsi, and urushi lacquer handmade test panels with various oils, pigments, and resins before and after aging. Confocal microscopy was used to acquire quantitative surface texture areal data from the test panels and a set of works of art and cultural heritage objects. Data science methods of feature engineering and convolutional neural networks (CNN) were applied to analyze the numerical surface texture data, assign lacquer specimens to the three lacquer types, and quantify the surface changes associated with aging.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface Topography Metrology and PropertiesSame topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207