MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592042721 · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2017.01.006

Vision science and adaptive optics, the state of the field

2017· review· en· W2592042721 on OpenAlexafffund
Susana Marcos, John S. Werner, Stephen A. Burns, William H. Merigan, Pablo Artal, David A. Atchison, Karen M. Hampson, Richard Legras, Linda Lundström, Geunyoung Yoon, Joseph Carroll, Stacey S. Choi, Nathan Doble, Adam M. Dubis, Alfredo Dubra, Ann E. Elsner, Ravi S. Jonnal, Donald T. Miller, Michel Pâques, Hannah E. Smithson, Laura K. Young, Yuhua Zhang, Melanie C. W. Campbell, Jennifer J. Hunter, Andrew Metha, Grażyna Palczewska, Jesse Schallek, Lawrence C. Sincich

Bibliographic record

VenueVision Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institute on AgingSecretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e InnovaciónComisión Sectorial de Investigación CientíficaAustralian Research CouncilVISTAKON PharmaceuticalsSeventh Framework ProgrammeEuropean Research CouncilLabexUniversity of MelbourneTelemedicine and Advanced Technology Research CenterFoundation Fighting BlindnessUniversity of OxfordNational Institutes of HealthCollege of OptometristsBausch and LombResearch to Prevent BlindnessBurroughs Wellcome FundEmpire State Development's Division of Science, Technology and InnovationAgence Nationale de la RechercheWellcome TrustNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of RochesterVetenskapsrådetJohn Fell Fund, University of OxfordGlaucoma Research FoundationEyeSight Foundation of AlabamaEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleEuropean CommissionCooperVisionU.S. Department of DefenseFight for SightCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAdaptive opticsVision scienceComputer scienceField (mathematics)OpticsAdaptation (eye)PhysicsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.450
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations146
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueVision ResearchSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207