MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986870211 · doi:10.1167/12.11.22

The Open Perimetry Interface: An enabling tool for clinical visual psychophysics

2012· article· en· W1986870211 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

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceInterface (matter)Computer visionArtificial intelligencePsychophysicsSet (abstract data type)Human–computer interactionPsychologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perimeters are commercially available instruments for measuring various attributes of the visual field in a clinical setting. They have several advantages over traditional lab-based systems for conducting vision experiments, including built-in gaze tracking and calibration, polished appearance, and attributes to increase participant comfort. Prior to this work, there was no standard to control such instruments, making it difficult and time consuming to use them for novel psychophysical experiments. This paper introduces the Open Perimetry Interface (OPI), a standard set of functions that can be used to control perimeters. Currently the standard is partially implemented in the open-source programming language R on two commercially available instruments: the Octopus 900 (a projection-based bowl perimeter produced by Haag-Streit, Switzerland) and the Heidelberg Edge Perimeter (a CRT-based system produced by Heidelberg Engineering, Germany), allowing these instruments to be used as a platform for psychophysical experimentation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.348 · 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