MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743888024 · doi:10.1049/iet-bmt.2016.0191

Analysis of diurnal changes in pupil dilation and eyelid aperture

2017· article· en· W2743888024 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Czajka, Kevin W. Bowyer, Estefan Ortiz

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Biometrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Notre Dame
KeywordsEyelidPupillary responsePupilDilation (metric space)PopulationComputer scienceIRIS (biosensor)MathematicsOpticsComputer visionDemographyMedicineOphthalmologyPhysicsGeometryBiometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work is inspired by the observation of surprising daily fluctuations in the number of valid iris code bits used to match irises in the NEXUS program operated by the Canadian Border Security Agency. These fluctuations have an impact on iris comparison scores but cannot be simply explained by pupil dilation, which does not have a clear pattern that would generalise to a population. To check if fluctuations in the number of valid iris code bits may be explained by eyelid aperture observed in a controlled, laboratory environment, the eyelid aperture was measured for 18 subjects participating in an acquisition every 2 h during the day. Simultaneously, the pupil dilation was measured to check the existence of a daily pattern for a population and for single subjects. There are two interesting outcomes of this work. First, there are statistically significant changes during the day in both pupil dilation and eyelid opening observed for individual subjects. Second, these changes do not generalise well into a common pattern for the group. Consequently, the diurnal fluctuations in the number of bits compared and the comparison score observed in the NEXUS program cannot be explained by changes in pupil dilation nor by eyelid aperture.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET BiometricsSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207