MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411532380 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85655-6_11

A Study of Three Modern Asian Lacquers Using Surface Metrology and Data Science/Analytics

2025· book-chapter· en· W4411532380 on OpenAlexaff
H. David Sheets, Patrick Ravines, Marianne Webb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsPublic Works and Government Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLacquerMetrologyConvolutional neural networkMaterials scienceSurface (topology)Texture (cosmology)Artificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)OpticsNanotechnologyMathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a quantitative approach to the study of surfaces using surface metrology and data science techniques. Asian lacquer types with various additives have a quantifiable impact on the topography of lacquered surfaces that may be used to detect lacquer type from non-contact measurements. To understand the unaged and aged characteristics, 15 different formulas of Asian lacquer were prepared using laccol, thitsi, and urushi with a range of oils, pigments, and resins were examined. The surfaces of the Asian lacquers test specimens were studied using confocal microscopy to acquire quantitative surface texture data, and data science methods of feature engineering and convolutional neural networks (CNN) were applied to analyze the numerical surface texture data, and assign lacquer specimens to the three lacquer types. Correct classification rates reached as high as 96%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207