Comparison of the Distance and Near Vistech Vision Contrast Test Systems (VCTS)
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
This paper describes the essential principles associated with the clinical use of a contrast sensitivity function (CSF) test to document vision loss or improvement. Some advantages of the CSF over the more conventional visual acuity test are described as well as the type of CSF losses associated with several ocular and neurological conditions. Contrast sensitivity was measured on each of 12 normal subjects ages 21 to 27 years on two separate occasions using both the distance and near versions of the Vistech Vision Contrast Test System charts (VCTS). Analysis of the variance showed that the results obtained using the distance and near chart were not significantly different. The contrast sensitivity scores elicited on the second trial, as compared to the first, were found to be consistently higher at all frequencies. This improvement associated with repeated testing is clinically evident among a high percentage of subjects tested but not statistically significant at the .05 level.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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