Petitioners ' Response To Comments Submitted Regarding the September 7,2006 Petition To Establish A New Generic Sub-Class for Fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
following comments and additional information ('Petitioners ' Response) regarding (a) the 48 supportive comments submitted by carpet retailers and professionals, an independent testing laboratory, and a large Italian manufacturer of yarns and fabrics that support Petitioner's September 7, 2006 Petition (the "Petition") for the designation of a new generic subclass for fibers made from PIT, (b) the sole opposing comment submitted on November 9, 2007 by Invista S.a.r.!.', and (c) the proposed new generic names submitted with the Petition. a) Petitioners ' Comments Regarding Letters Submitted By Carpet Retailers and Professionals Petitioners submit that the 48 comments submitted to the FTC in support of the Petition demonstrate that the scientific evidence submitted by Petitioners correlates well with observations by carpet professionals, an independent testing laboratory, and a fabric manufacturer regarding the performance of carpet and fabric produced from PIT fibers. 1 At page 7 of Invista's comments, lnvista raises an issue unrelated to the Issues raised In the Petition regarding Mohawk's labeling of carpets manufactured from PIT fibers. Since DuPont and PIT Canada are
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".