Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optometry and Vision Science is proud to provide this entire issue dedicated to glaucoma research. The Guest Editors have brought together a wonderful resource for researchers and clinicians alike. With three separate invited perspectives as Clinical Reports and five authoritative Reviews in current research topics in glaucoma by leading colleagues in the field, there is a rich serving indeed. In addition eight original research articles give wonderful original research findings and glimpses of what is ahead in glaucoma research and patient care. This is the second Optometry and Vision Science issue dedicated to Glaucoma research and its impact on direct care of glaucoma patients. The first, guest edited by four Academy fellows and leaders in the Optometric Glaucoma Society (OGS),1 was published in 2006 and now is available open access.2 It had substantial impact. In this June 2008 Feature Issue we have leading researchers in optometry and ophthalmology acting as our Guest Editors; they have put together a superb compendium of work with authorship contributions from around the world, including Canada, UK, US, Australia, Portugal, and Germany. The Feature Issue brings direct clinical patient care relevance and perspective while assessing and reporting the latest advances in glaucoma discovery and understanding. The effort was ably lead by Brad Fortune, OD, PhD, FAAO, a glaucoma researcher at Discoveries in Sight in Portland Oregon. He has been simply superb in all his efforts to make this a first class contribution to the literature. He was well supported by fellow Guest Editors William (“Bill”) Hare, OD, PhD, from Irvine, California, Allison McKendrick, OD, PhD, from Melbourne, Australia, and Robert Weinreb, MD, from San Diego, California. All enjoy fine reputations in the vision and eye research world and all are active in glaucoma research. Their Guest Editorial provides an excellent overview of glaucoma research today and, in particular, the contributions you will find in this issue. I know you will enjoy their ‘product’!FIGURE 1.: From left to right. Guest Editors: Brad Fortune, OD, PhD, FAAO, William A. Hare, OD, PhD, Allison M. McKendrick, MScOptom, PhD, and Robert N. Weinreb, MD.Anthony J. Adams Editor-in-Chief Berkeley, California
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.477 | 0.383 |
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".