Predicting the Farnsworth–Munsell D15 and Holmes–Wright-A lantern outcomes with computer-based color vision tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined the AC1 agreement values between computer-based color vision tests and the Farnworth-Munsell D-15 (F-D15) and the Holmes-Wright Type A lantern (HWA). The computer-based tests were the United States Air Force Cone Contrast Test (OCCT), Cambridge Color Test, Innova Rabin Cone Contrast, Konan-Waggoner D15 (KWC-D15), and Color Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD). Sixty-eight color-vision-defective persons participated. The KWC-D15 had the highest AC1 with the F-D15 (${\rm AC1} = {0.88}$AC1=0.88). Both the CAD and OCCT had the highest values with the HWA (${\rm AC1} \gt {0.96}$AC1>0.96). The KWC-D15 would be the best substitute for the F-D15. Either the CAD or OCCT would be appropriate substitutes for the HWA.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".