MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006196434 · doi:10.1364/josaa.382301

Lighting for color vision examination in the era of LEDs: the FM100Hue Test

2020· article· en· W3006196434 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFlinders University
KeywordsLight-emitting diodeTest (biology)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceOptometryComputer graphics (images)OpticsMedicineGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lighting conditions nominated for color vision testing are many and varied. The recommendation of CIE color rendering index (CIE CRI) ≥90 and correlated color temperature of close to 6500 K is widely made for color vision testing generally. With the demise of incandescent and fluorescent lighting and their replacement by light-emitting diodes (LEDs), this is an opportune time to revisit the recommendation. In this paper, we consider the current sources, acceptable and unacceptable, and improvements to the recommendation as it applies to the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test (FM100Hue Test). We conclude that there is no need to treat LEDs as a special case but propose a modified CRI measure.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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