Supplementary material from "Secondary ion mass spectrometry, a powerful tool for revealing ink formulations and animal skins in medieval manuscripts"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book production by medieval scriptoria have gained growing interest in recent studies. In this context, identifying ink compositions and parchment animal species from illuminated manuscripts is of great importance. Here, we introduce time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) as a non-invasive tool to identify both inks and animal skins in manuscripts, at the same time. For this purpose, both positive and negative ion spectra in inked and non-inked areas were recorded. Chemical compositions of pigments (decoration) or black inks (text) were determined by searching for characteristic ion mass peaks. Animal skins were identified by data processing of raw ToF-SIMS spectra using principal component analysis (PCA). In illuminated manuscripts from the fifteenth to sixteenth century, malachite (green), azurite (blue), cinnabar (red) inorganic pigments, as well as iron-gall black ink, were identified. Carbon black and indigo (blue) organic pigments were also identified. Animal skins were identified in modern parchments of known animal species by a two-step PCA procedure. We believe the proposed method will find extensive application in material studies of medieval manuscripts, as it is non-invasive, highly sensitive and able to identify both inks and animal skins at the same time, even from traces of pigments and tiny scanned areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.818 | 0.395 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".