MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099497054 · doi:10.1364/josaa.31.000a55

Occupational color vision standards: new prospects

2014· article· en· W2099497054 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Birch, Marisa Rodríguez‐Carmona

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFederal Aviation Administration
KeywordsTest (biology)Task (project management)AviationColor visionWork (physics)Military aviationEngineeringAeronauticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupational color vision standards in transport have been implemented for 100 years. A review of these standards has taken place early this century prompted by antidiscrimination laws in the workplace and several transport accidents. The Australian and Canadian Railways have developed new lanterns to address their occupational medical requirements. The Civil Aviation Authority in the UK has adopted the Color Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test as the standard for assessing color vision for professional flight crews. The methodology employed using the CAD test ensures that color deficient pilot applicants able to complete the most safety-critical task with the same accuracy as normal trichromats can be accepted for pilot training. This methodology can be extended for setting new color vision standards in other work environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.017
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207