MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Research of Visual Performance with Differenet Optical Spectrum Light Sources

2012· article· en· W2002947541 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

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIlluminanceColor temperatureIncandescent light bulbAlertnessLight sourceFluorescent lampComputer scienceOpticsElectromagnetic spectrumMonochromeMathematicsComputer visionPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to determine the effect of different light source’s spectrum to a subjects’ visual performance, this experiment examined three fluorescent lamps with a colour temperature of 2700K, 4000K and 6500K and an incandescent lamp. The results were compared to the average recognition rate a “reference person” from different light sources. Experimental results show significant differences in the recognition rate from different optical spectrum light source and recognition rate value. We determined the best combination of ambient and chalkboard light source and propose avoiding combination for classroom lighting that is clearly inferior. This article provides selection reference for optimal classroom ambient and blackboard lighting. In recent years, the study of psychological and physiological effect of light has become one of the most important field in lighting research[1]. Studies has shown that different light spectrum could affect human circadian rhythm, body temperature and alertness, which directly affecting work efficiency and health[2]. The effects by classroom light spectrum on efficiency and health cannot be ignored, as the students are exposed to one particular lighting environment for extended periods of time. Through a systematic survey of classroom lighting in several universities in Chongqing and Chengdu, T5 fluorescent of high colour temperature about 6500K was the predominant choice for classroom general lighting as well as blackboard lighting. Many students complained that they tired easily at this colour temperature. In another study on classroom light source[3] students’ preference for colour temperature is not fixed but varies according to classroom’s function and illuminance level. It was insufficient to choose colour temperature of classroom lighting based on the results of the above questionnaire. We therefore chose and compared T5 fluorescent lamps of 2700K, 4000K and 6500K colour temperature on the visual performance and their effects on study efficiency, asthenopia and physiological rhythm. Due to space limitations this article only discusses the contrast experiment of visual performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.352 · 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