MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resistance of Plastic Ophthalmic Lenses: The Effect of Base Curve on Different Materials During Static Load Testing

2001· article· en· W1971108857 on OpenAlexaff
MOHAMADOU LAMINE DIALLO, Pierre Simonet, Benoît Frenette, B. Sanschagrin

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycarbonateBase (topology)Materials scienceLens (geology)Fracture (geology)Composite materialOpticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study was designated to evaluate, through a static load test, the influence of lens base curve on the fracture resistance of three common plastic materials. METHODS: A JJ Lloyd load cell machine was used to test the fracture resistance of -4.00 D spherical lenses. The samples had a nominal center thickness of 2.0 mm and a base curve distributed in one of five groups (+0.50, +2.50, +4.50, +6.50, and +8.50 D). The lenses were manufactured in CR39, polycarbonate, and TL16, a high refractive index plastic (n = 1.599). RESULTS: The lens base curve influenced fracture resistance for all materials. For these materials, resistance increased as the base curve varied from +0.50 to +8.50 D. The resistance of CR39, TL16, and polycarbonate lenses was found to be linearly dependent on lens base curve. The effect is stronger for polycarbonate. Fracture resistance was higher for TL16 than for CR39, and polycarbonate was much more resistant to breakage than the two other materials. CONCLUSIONS: For a given power, the fracture resistance of an ophthalmic lens is reduced when its base curve has a low value. Consequently, the flattening of ophthalmic lenses for cosmetic purposes is not recommended as far as fracture resistance is concerned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207