The print and packaging forum:\na report on the print industry’s review of its own performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report is presented to the Print and Packaging Forum in fulfilment of the activities envisaged under Research Agreement signed between the Leadership, Innovation and Knowledge Research Centre DCU and the Irish Printing and Packaging Forum dated 15 July 2010.\n\nThe remainder of this report sets out our research findings and response to the requirements set out in the Research Agreement.\n\nSection 3 sets out our approach and research methodology including limitations on this study and subsequent findings.\n\nSection 4 details the research findings. A survey was conducted of the industry to provide information on various aspects of its performance. Unfortunately no firms operating in the newspaper or paper sectors responded thus impacting on the representativeness of the survey. The main findings are summarised below.\n\nThe vast majority of companies surveyed continue to be private Irish-owned firms. Sales performance of surveyed companies is in decline. The Industry faces competition internationally; the overwhelming majority of companies surveyed do not export. The respondents considered themselves relatively capable against Irish competitors however less competitive across nearly all areas against International competition. Particular factors in their lack of competitiveness are seen as raw material costs and access and overall relative cost position.\n\nAverage employment is 20 persons, inferring a significant decline when compared to the 2005 Report. This confirmed supporting data from Forfas. On average over 55% of employees of respondent companies are operatives or crafts people. Less than 20% of respondent companies had vacancies compared to over half reported in 2005.\n\nBoth overcapacity and low capacity usage remain features of the industry however expected lead times and time lost due to breakdowns has improved when compared to the 2005 Report. Average capacity utilisation for companies in the survey was 69% with over a third operating at below 60%. Over 80% of companies surveyed indicated that they undertake benchmarking; this is a significant increase on the level reported in the 2005 Report.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.021 |
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".