MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973134251 · doi:10.1117/12.643211

A basis for cones

2006· article· en· W1973134251 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisBasis (linear algebra)Spectrum (functional analysis)Matrix decompositionCone (formal languages)MathematicsComponent (thermodynamics)FactorizationMatrix (chemical analysis)Non-negative matrix factorizationComputer scienceAlgorithmApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceEigenvalues and eigenvectorsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why do the human cones have the spectral sensitivities they do? We hypothesize that they may have evolved to their present form because their sensitivities are optimal in terms of their ability to recover the spectrum of incident light. As evidence in favor of this hypothesis, we compare the accuracy with which the incoming spectrum can be approximated by a three-dimensional linear model based on the cone responses and compare this to the optimal approximations defined by models based on principal components analysis, independent component analysis, non-negative matrix factorization and non-negative independent component analysis. We introduce a new method of reconstructing spectra from the cone responses and show that the cones are almost as good as these optimal methods in estimating the spectrum.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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