Optical Causes of Experimental Myopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments in which chicks are reared wearing a translucent goggle, or some similar device designed to degrade the retinal image, usually result in the induction of a significant degree of myopia. The induced myopia is due to enlargement of the vitreous chamber of the eye. Despite extensive change in the size, shape and refractive index distribution of the crystalline lens, its refractive power is static in the embryonic and early chick eye. The contribution to myopia of the cornea is uncertain; some studies have indicated either an increase or a decrease in corneal radius of curvature while others found no change. The fact that experimental myopia can be produced in chicks even when the optic nerve has been cut or when the degraded retinal image is restricted to one sector of the eye suggests that accommodation is not involved. Nevertheless, when the retinal image is degraded by being defocused with convex or concave lenses, myopia (concave lenses) or hyperopia (convex lenses) results. Chicks wearing concave or convex soft contact lenses from the day of hatching develop refractive states equal to the lens power (+8 and -10 diopters) within one week. The ability of the eye to vary its refractive development according to the sign of defocus suggests a role for accommodation. However, study of the ciliary muscle and accommodative apparatus of myopic and emmetropic chick eyes does not reveal any morphological differences that might indicate that the myopic eye had experienced an increased level of accommodation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".