Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A major Canadian railway company purchased safety eyewear sunglasses that were purported to have a neutral gray tint and that met the North American occupational and fashion sunglass requirements for signal light transmittance. After several weeks, the company began to receive reliable reports from employees that the yellow wayside signal appeared red when viewed through these sunglasses. Furthermore, the lenses themselves appeared to have a greenish brown tint rather than gray as the labeling implied. METHODS: The transmission properties of the lenses were measured with a spectrophotometer, and color shifts were calculated for both roadway and railway signal lights. RESULTS: The lenses did have a brown tint and they did meet the North American and European occupational sunglass transmittance requirements for roadway traffic signal lights. However, they did not meet the Australian occupational requirements because the red signal visibility factor was too high. Calculations using typical railroad wayside signal lights showed that the lenses would shift the yellow signal chromaticity coordinates beyond the boundaries for the railway yellow signals and toward the red end of the International Commission on Illumination chromaticity diagram, confirming the employees' reports. CONCLUSIONS: Although the lenses met the North American and European sunglass transmittance requirements for traffic signal lights, the results showed that these standards are inappropriate for the railroad environment because the yellow wayside signal lights are redder and smaller in angular size than typical North American and European traffic lights. Some suggestions on a modified transmittance requirement are given to avoid this problem in the future.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".