MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977941536 · doi:10.1080/2576117x.2019.1662250

Eccentric Fixation and Inverse Occlusion: Renewing Our Interest?

2019· letter· en· W2977941536 on OpenAlexaff
Jocelyn Zurevinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsSaskatoon City Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOcclusionFovealFixation (population genetics)MedicineOptometrySurgeryOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of inverse occlusion and pleoptics came into favor in Europe and then in North America in the late 1940's, and fell out of favor less than 25 years later. Introduced as a method of promoting foveal fixation, and improving binocularity and vision in cases of eccentric fixation, it did not outperform conventional occlusion prescribed at an earlier age.In this issue, Godts and Mathysen provide a case series of 11 contemporary patients treated with inverse occlusion after patching failure. In response, this article reviews the procedures and goals of inverse occlusion and pleoptics using the historic information available, in attempt to ascertain whether there is an indication for renewing their use.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Binocular Vision and Ocular MotilitySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207