MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102693352 · doi:10.1016/j.optom.2014.06.001

The role of refraction in vision research

2014· editorial· en· W2102693352 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Optometry · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmmetropiaOptometryRefractionRefractive errorBlindnessMedicineVisual acuityOpticsOphthalmologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Refraction is defined as the act of determining the focal condition (emmetropia or various ametropias) of the eye and its corrections by optical devices, usually spectacles or contact lenses.1 It is one of the most important activities of the clinical work of optometrists and an indispensable variable to be considered in studies on vision. Refraction is a cause of avoidable blindness, being the second cause of blindness in less-developed countries (18%), after cataract (39%).2 Likewise, refraction is the first factor to consider in cases of binocular and accommodative disorders and consequently the first condition treated in such cases.3 Furthermore, one of the main areas of research and innovation in Visual Sciences, refractive surgery, is aimed at minimizing refraction, at providing spectacle independence and consequently quality of life.4 Therefore, refraction is one of the most important variables to evaluate in studies on vision and consequently in studies on Optometry, as a branch of Visual Sciences. A great variety of studies evaluating the effect of some therapeutic approaches, the outcomes with different optical aids, the distribution of refractive errors in different areas of the world or how to evaluate the impact of refractive error in some vision-related abilities have been conducted and reported since many years ago. The current issue of Journal of Optometry is an additional contribution to scientific community with some interesting and well-conducted researches involving refraction. The evaluation of the distribution of refractive errors in some distant areas such as Puerto Rico or Qassim Province (Saudi Arabia) as well as the study of the prevalence of asymptomatic ocular conditions in subjects with refractive-based symptoms in a Canadian population are shown in the current issue. Likewise, the refractive change as well as other related changes after corneal surgery are discussed in two papers, one about seasonal changes in the outcome after LASIK surgery and another review paper about the outcome of corneal collagen crosslinking. Optometrists must continue considering in the clinical practice refraction as a crucial tool to evaluate the results of different optometric treatment approaches, to define the most adequate protocol to follow, and to diagnose some eye conditions. In agreement with this, Optometry research must deepen their knowledge on refractive changes in different ocular conditions as well as on new options to compensate refractive errors.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.427 · 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