Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent studies showing a lack of internal consistency for the Holmes-Wright Type A Lantern (HWA) raise the issue as to whether the lantern test is repeatable. This study determines the HWA repeatability for several scoring criteria. METHODS: There were 78 individuals with normal color vision (NCV) and 80 individuals with defective color vision (DCV) who were tested during two separate visits. Three runs of the test lights were always presented in dim room illumination. An additional dark-adapted run was presented during both visits for a subset of 61 subjects. Repeatability was evaluated for the following pass/fail criteria: the Joint Aviation Requirements, Farnsworth's criterion, the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage criterion for the HWA, a perfect performance, and the 99th and 100th percentile scores of the NCV sample. RESULTS: The NCV agreement for passing both sessions was high, with 96% having a perfect score at both sessions. The DCV agreement for passing both sessions was lower, ranging from 0.62 to 0.80. Criteria which stopped the test after a perfect performance on the first run had the lowest values. The DCV agreement for failing both sessions was high, ranging from 0.97 to 0.99. CONCLUSIONS: Stopping the test after a perfect performance on the first run should be abandoned. Presenting three runs of the nine test lights and allowing no more than two errors is repeatable, passes all the NCV, and minimizes the number of individuals who pass the lantern at the first session and fail at a later session.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".