Conference Proceedings: 1st International Conference on Preservation and Conservation Issues related to Digital Printing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The area of research is conservation with particular interest in the factors affecting digital printing These Conference Proceedings were edited and subsequently published in March 2001. The lead organiser and editor was Professor Robert Thompson. The author liaised with the speakers to produce the final papers that are published here. The conference was novel in bringing together speakers and an audience of conservation and preservation scientists, chemists, physicists, artists; conservators from galleries, museums and libraries as well as suppliers of ink, paper and printing technologies. The aim of the conference was to explore the issues affecting the longevity of artefacts produced using the new digital printing technologies and their associated materials. Unlike established artists and author media, the substrates and colorants used with digital printing technologies are now known to be unstable under a range of conditions and artefacts so produced are threatened during display and storage. However, the use of digital printing by artists and publishing houses is increasing rapidly and with them the potential for degradation of original works. Accordingly there is growing international concern about the future of such materials and the ability to conserve them for posterity. Many interesting and useful conclusions were drawn regarding the state of the stability and longevity of digitally printed artefacts. Factors affecting the stability of prints were found to be complex. It was established that there was a dearth of information relating to specification and standardisation of test procedures and storage criteria. Work is under way with the International Standards Organisation and is a subject to be pursued by subsequent conferences. The speakers were drawn from an international pool of expertise from the US, Germany, Canada, Denmark, France, as well as the UK. The author’s knowledge in such a range of subjects ensured that these proceedings have appeared in print.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".