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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study had three main goals: to assess the degree of suppression in patients with strabismic, anisometropic, and mixed amblyopia; to establish the relationship between suppression and the degree of amblyopia; and to compare the degree of suppression across the clinical subgroups within the sample. METHODS: Using both standard measures of suppression (Bagolini lenses and neutral density [ND] filters, Worth 4-Dot test) and a new approach involving the measurement of dichoptic motion thresholds under conditions of variable interocular contrast, the degree of suppression in 43 amblyopic patients with strabismus, anisometropia, or a combination of both was quantified. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the quantitative measures of suppression made with the new dichoptic motion threshold technique and measurements made with standard clinical techniques (Bagolini lenses and ND filters, Worth 4-Dot test). The degree of suppression was found to correlate directly with the degree of amblyopia within our clinical sample, whereby stronger suppression was associated with a greater difference in interocular acuity and poorer stereoacuity. Suppression was not related to the type or angle of strabismus when this was present or the previous treatment history. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that suppression may have a primary role in the amblyopia syndrome and therefore have implications for the treatment of amblyopia.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it