Bibliographic record
Abstract
I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be electronically available to the public. ii Purpose: This study asks whether active horizontal angular Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex (VOR) gain is capable of monocular adaptation after 4 hours of wearing 10 dioptres (D) of induced anisometropia in healthy human adults. Method: The participants (average age 28 years) wore a contact lenses/spectacles combination for 4 hours. The power of the spectacle was +5.00D (magnified images 8.65%) in front of the right eye and –5.00D (minified images 5.48%) for the left eye, while the power of the contact lenses was equal to the subjects ’ habitual correction, summed with the opposite power of the spectacle lens. Eye and head position data was collected in complete darkness, in one-minute trials before adaptation and every 30 minutes for 2 hours after adaptation. Eye and head position data obtained using a video-based eye tracking system, was analyzed offline using Fast Fourier Transform in MATHCADTM 11.1 software to calculate VOR gain. The VOR gain was compared between the right eye and left eyes for the trials before and after adaptation. Results: In the first post-adaptation trial, a significant decrease in VOR gain ( ≈ 6%) occurred in the left eye in response to the miniaturizing lens. The right eye VOR gain did not show a significant change in the first post-adaptation trial (≈2 % decrease). During the remaining trials in the 2 hour follow-up time, both eyes showed a significant decrease compared to the baseline trial. This might indicate habituation of the VOR from repeated testing, or fatigue. Conclusion: There was monocular adaptation of VOR in response to the combined contact lenses/spectacles, but it was not complete and it was not as we expected. However, trying different amounts of anisometropia in one or two directions, a longer adaptation period (more than 4 hours) or monitoring the gain for more than 2 hours after adaptation with a longer separation between trials, might show different results. iii
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".