Judging the Scientific Quality of Applied Lighting Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applied lighting research is inherently interdisciplinary. Any one study in which investigators seek to understand the effects of light may involve expertise drawn from fields as varied as psychology, physiology, photobiology, vision science, engineering, physics, horticulture, and architecture. Despite differences in the specifics of research methods, data management, data analysis, and presentation, the logic of scientific thinking is a common thread. This is the basis on which the peer review system operates. This article leads readers through the criteria used by journal reviewers and editors to determine the acceptability of papers for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This is done by review of the 1941 paper by Kruithof in which he described the now-famous “Kruithof curve” relating preferred light source color temperatures and illuminances: How would one review the original Kruithof paper today, and what would we expect to be told about this work in order to judge the validity of the conclusions?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.531 | 0.859 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".