MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036700912 · doi:10.1889/1.2433199

25.3: Observations of Luminance, Contrast and Amplitude Resolution of Displays

2006· article· en· W2036700912 on OpenAlexaff
Helge Seetzen, Hiroe Li, Linton Ye, Wolfgang Heidrich, Lorne Whitehead, Greg Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueSID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminanceContrast (vision)AmplitudeResolution (logic)Contrast ratioOpticsComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Luminance, contrast ratio and amplitude resolution are rapidly growing display specifications. Through a series of human factor studies we have developed simple guidelines for these specifications including viewer preference for luminance, optimal contrast ratio and amplitude resolution under realistic conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSID Symposium Digest of Technical PapersSame topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207