Visual function of police officers who have undergone refractive surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The visual acuity and contrast sensitivity of police recruits and officers was evaluated in both normal and dim illumination conditions to determine whether officers who have had refractive surgery have compromised night vision. METHODS: The control group consisted of 76 officers and recruits who have not had refractive surgery and the refractive surgery group consisted of 22 officers and recruits who had refractive surgery. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured under both room illumination and dim illumination. The room illumination test series included high contrast acuity, low contrast acuity and Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity. The dim illumination test series included high contrast acuity, low contrast acuity, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, license plate number acuity (with and without glare) and the Mesotest. RESULTS: The general findings were that the refractive surgery group had lower acuity scores on low contrast targets in both room and dim light levels along with a reduction in the Mesotest scores with a glare source compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although refractive surgery police recruits and officers had reduced performance on some vision tests, these reductions were small and it is unlikely that their performance on vision related tasks would be compromised, on average. The major concern is the small number of refractive surgery candidates whose results were well outside the range of the non-surgical candidates. Their vision may be unacceptable for policing.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".