MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335449444 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000000059

Plasticity in Sensory Systems, Jennifer K. E.Steeves, Laurence R.Harris, eds. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2013. $96.00

2013· article· en· W2335449444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald E. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHallucinations in medical conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertionPsychologySet (abstract data type)Test (biology)PsychoanalysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FIGURE: Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2013. $96.00Although the title might suggest a broader mandate, this timely edited book reviews primarily the capacity for change (plasticity) in the visual system. All 12 contributing authors were participants at a conference on Plastic Vision in 2011 in Toronto that was organized by the editors. The book is divided into three sections, each with four chapters: Visual and Visuomotor Plasticity, Plasticity in Children and Plasticity in Adulthood, and Vision Rehabilitation. Optometrists are very familiar with the traditional notion of neural plasticity in the visual system as an early period, often referred to as critical, during which unbalanced visual input to the two eyes can lead to reduced vision in one eye (amblyopia) and/or severe impairment of stereoscopic vision. It has long been asserted that correction of these deficits could only occur if interventions were initiated before a certain age. A chapter by Hess and Thompson opens with the anecdotal account of how the late Fergus Campbell would relate to new members of his laboratory his belief that in authoritative texts such as Duke-Elder’s System of Ophthalmology, the more dogmatic a statement was phrased, the more likely it was wrong. So confident was he of this assertion that he would use it to find possible research topics for new graduate students; he would open any volume of the set at random and locate a strongly asserted position to test. I might add that from my experience of Fergus, this scenario would probably be accompanied by a twinkle in Fergus’s eye, as he passed a beverage accompanied by one of own printed coasters on which was a phrase such as “publish or perish” to unsettle the student’s nerve and, as a consequence, the drink. Many of the chapters in this fine book provide data to challenge the assertion that recovery from amblyopia occurs only in childhood. Chapters by Maurer and Lewis, Hess and Thompson, and by Barry all provide strong evidence of significant neural plasticity in adulthood that can be tapped by various innovative procedures. Optometrists will also find the other chapters very instructive as they address topics such as the wider shortcomings in amblyopia including visuomotor deficits, cross-modal plasticity as a consequence of enucleation of an eye or early blindness, as well as visual rehabilitative strategies. Donald E. Mitchell Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicHallucinations in medical conditionsFrench-language works237,207