Retest Variability of Human Infant Contrast Sensitivity: How Many Tests Are Sufficient?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retest variability of a new infant contrast sensitivity (CS) card procedure was assessed by binocular measurement of a group of 20 6-month-olds twice within a 1-week period. Coefficient of reliability analyses showed that within-subject variability between tests was only slightly less than variation across subjects, which suggests that results from a single test are a poor predictor of an infant's "true" visual functioning. To determine how many tests are needed to estimate when infant CS stabilizes to within an acceptable (0.15 log unit) criterion, a second experiment was conducted in which a small group of subjects was tested repeatedly over a 2-week period. The results showed that averaging performance on 2 to 3 tests was required before an accurate estimate of the subject's performance could be obtained. Our results suggest that caution should be taken in the interpretation of a single measurement of infant visual functioning.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it