MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046396053 · doi:10.1007/s10633-006-9030-0

ISCEV Standard for Clinical Electro-oculography (EOG) 2006

2006· article· en· W2046396053 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumenta Ophthalmologica · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular and Laser Science Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation TrustHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of New South WalesPfizer
KeywordsFundus (uterus)Clinical electrophysiologyOphthalmologyComputer scienceOptometryMedicineElectrophysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Clinical Electro-oculogram (EOG) is an electrophysiological test of function of the outer retina and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) in which the change in the electrical potential between the cornea and the ocular fundus is recorded during successive periods of dark and light adaptation. This document sets out a Standard Method for performance of the test, and also gives detailed guidance on technical and practical issues, and on reporting test results. The main object of the Standard is to promote consistent quality of testing and reporting within and between centres. This 2006 Standard, from the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV: www.iscev.org ), is a revision of the previous Standard published in 1993, and reviewed and re-issued in 1998.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.376 · 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