MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210058299 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v47i4.4462

Improved Stereoacuity Testing with the Judgement of Equal Distances

2021· article· en· W3210058299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W.L. Larson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoscopic acuityJudgementTwo-alternative forced choiceTest (biology)PerceptionPsychologyMathematicsBinocular disparityDepth perceptionQuality (philosophy)AudiologyOptometryStereopsisStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicinePhysicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stereoacuity tests do not usually require the judgement of equal distances. A stereoacuity test which included zero disparity and required equal distance judgements was used to investigate the effect of overall aniseikonia on depth perception thresholds and the disparity of subjective equi­distance ( DSE ). The results of this investigation are reported. The same data were used to determine the effect that a forced choice without the judgement of equal distances would have on test results. Three different ways of responding to a forced choice were simulated by redistributing equal distance respon­ses between left and right nearer responses. These simulations often produced apparently better stereoacuities. From this, it is concluded that equal distance judgements improve the quality of stereo­acuity test results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207