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 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

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.450
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