A Comparative Study of <i>Andongpoh</i> and <i>Musam</i> Korean Hemp:The Production of Two Distinct Qualities of Hemp Cloth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is said that Korean hemp was already in use in BCE 2333 and that by the 7th century it had become one of the primary fibers used. Today, Koreans manufacture hemp cloth for shrouds, funerary costumes, and everyday summer-wear. There are two types of Korean hemp cloth: Andongpoh (Seang-neang-ii), which is produced in Andong County and adjacent areas; and Musam (Ik-neang-ii), which is produced in eleven different regions throughout Korea. The majority of hemp fabric production in Korea is Musam, and in Boseong County, in southern Korea, there is a particularly long history of Musam hemp cultivation. Twenty-five percent of all Korean hemp is cultivated in this region, and 50% of market share in Korean hemp fabric is produced here. Adding further research that was conducted on Musam hemp production in Boseong County in 2007, to a presentation made in Toronto (in 2006) on this subject, this paper will focus on a step by step comparison of the two types of hemp production. The ultimate goal is to point out how the differences in production create the two different qualities of hemp cloth. In addition, the paper will address ways the market for the two types of hemp has changed in the present day. Both types of hemp are 35cm (14in) wide, but Andongpoh is much finer, as it is composed of 640 to 1200 warps. It is considered an exquisite fabric, and some historical references have been found in which it was presented as an inter-class gift by members of the lower/ middle class to members of the upper class.2 Musam, on the other hand, which is coarse but very durable, was historically produced for clothing for the middle and lower classes and also for funerary garments. Musam consists of 300 to 560 warps in the same width as Andongphoh.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".