Effects of Resolution, Range, and Image Contrast on Target Acquisition Performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the joint influence of resolution, target range, and image contrast on the detection and identification of targets in simulated naturalistic scenes. BACKGROUND: Resolution requirements for target acquisition have been developed based on threshold values obtained using imaging systems, when target range was fixed, and image characteristics were determined by the system. Subsequent work has examined the influence of factors like target range and image contrast on target acquisition. METHOD: We varied the resolution and contrast of static images in two experiments. Participants (soldiers) decided whether a human target was located in the scene (detection task) or whether a target was friendly or hostile (identification task). Target range was also varied (50-400 m). In Experiment 1, 30 participants saw color images with a single target exemplar. In Experiment 2, another 30 participants saw monochrome images containing different target exemplars. RESULTS: The effects of target range and image contrast were qualitatively different above and below 6 pixels per meter of target for both tasks in both experiments. CONCLUSION: Target detection and identification performance were a joint function of image resolution, range, and contrast for both color and monochrome images. APPLICATION: The beneficial effects of increasing resolution for target acquisition performance are greater for closer (larger) targets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it