MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070432943 · doi:10.1109/ecce.2010.5618050

LED lighting flicker and potential health concerns: IEEE standard PAR1789 update

2010· article· en· W2070432943 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular and Laser Science Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlickerLED lampElectric lightSmart lightingComputer scienceHuman healthLight-emitting diodeTelecommunicationsEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Architectural engineeringElectrical engineeringBusinessMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The IEEE Standards Working Group, IEEE PAR1789 “Recommending practices for modulating current in High Brightness LEDs for mitigating health risks to viewers” has been formed to advise the lighting industry, ANSI/NEMA, IEC, EnergyStar and other standards groups about the emerging concern of flicker in LED lighting. This paper introduces power electronic designers for LED lighting to health concerns relating to flicker, demonstrates that existing technologies in LED lighting sometimes provide flicker at frequencies that may induce biological human response, and discusses a few methods to consider when trying to mitigate unintentional biological effects of LED lighting. The paper represents on-going work in IEEE PAR1789 that is vital to designing safe LED lamp drivers.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Quick stats

Citations318
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOcular and Laser Science ResearchFrench-language works237,207