FURTHER STUDIES ON THE SCORCHES AND THE WATERMARKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Paris Congress of 2002, we presented a study that took several years, where we analyzed the visible consequences of the various accidents that the Holy Shroud has suffered through the centuries. Principally we pointed out how the holes caused by the Chambery fire of 1532 and the large water stains on the edges and in the central part of the cloth were in no way related, but were consequences of two totally distinct episodes. In this meeting we want to return to that study in the light of further research and observations we have conducted in the past two years, to add to what we reported at that time. The method used initially was that of marking precisely the limits of each hole and of each burn that was produced during the Chambery fire, using the photographs of Enrie and the 1978 photographs in transparency of Barrie Schwortz, in which these were quite visible although they were covered by patchwork sewn over the Shroud by the Poor Clare nuns in 1534.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.003 |
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".