MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Method for Using Relay Lenses with Display Monitors for Vision Testing at Far and Near

2000· article· en· W2048385213 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

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMilton District Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchromatic lensOptical transfer functionComputer scienceOpticsLens (geology)Computer visionRelaySpatial frequencyArtificial intelligenceSensitivity (control systems)Contrast (vision)Image resolutionPhysicsEngineeringElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resolution limitations preclude the use of display monitors for near testing of acuity and contrast sensitivity. Relay lenses can form minified aerial images of the display at any given near viewing distance, but the image will differ in spatial frequency from the display. Equations are presented that can be used to specify the far- and near-viewing distances and the necessary focal length of a lens so that the display and its near aerial image have identical spatial frequencies when viewed by a subject at a fixed location. Modulation transfer function (MTF) calculations show that achromatic doublets will not degrade the resolution across a 300-mm wide display, thereby providing the versatility of display monitors for near vision testing.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.389 · 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