MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154985073 · doi:10.1518/0018720024497862

LCD versus CRT Displays: A Comparison of Visual Search Performance for Colored Symbols

2002· article· en· W2154985073 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsGeneral Dynamics (Canada)University of TorontoDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersCompute CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsLiquid-crystal displayVisual searchColoredCathode ray tubeArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPixelViewing angleComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Computer graphics (images)CRTSOpticsPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual search performance for tactical symbols was examined with liquid-crystal (LCD) and cathode-ray tube (CRT) displays. Twenty-four adult participants (19 men, 5 women; mean age 41 years) searched for navy tactical display symbols on a map background. LCD and CRT displays of similar size and resolution (52 cm diagonal, 1280 x 1024 pixels) were used. Viewing angle (0 degrees vs. 60 degrees of azimuth), set size, target color (blue, red, or white), target presence, and search type (feature vs. conjunction) were also manipulated. Participants showed reduced sensitivity for red and blue symbols viewed 60 degrees off axis with the LCD relative to on-axis LCD, or to the CRT on or off axis. Colored symbols viewed off axis on the LCD produced longer response times in feature search and lower search efficiency in conjunction search. The results argue against the use of current LCD technology when off-axis viewing is likely and color coding is used.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.231 · 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