Laser Projection versus a CRT Display in the Visual Perception of Aircraft Aspect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-resolution visual displays have been designed for flight simulation so that observers may judge the aspect angle of aircraft at far distances. The present experiment compares two display devices as untrained observers judge the spatial orientation of two target aircraft: F-15 and F-16 jets. The display devices are a prototype direct-write microlaser projector and an SXGA-format CRT display. Observers' accuracy of aircraft identification is better with the laser projector, and recognition response times are faster. A simple rule was found to fit the observers' response times; it is expressed in terms of a statistic on the autocorrelation of black-and-white silhouette images of aircraft. Observers' estimates of aspect are biased by the laser projector, whereas observers' estimates of aspect are accurate on average with the SXGA display. This bias in estimation of aspect may be attributable to variations in line brightness introduced by the laser projector. Actual or potential applications of this research include the evaluation of high-resolution visual displays for the training of basic fighter maneuvers with military jet pilots.
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 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".