Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optometry and Vision Science recently discovered articles published in 2017 and 2018 with incorrect or incomplete funding/support or conflict of interest statements due to errors in the production process. The correct statements are listed below, and the online versions of these articles have been corrected. The publisher sincerely regrets these errors. 1. Almoqbel FM, Irving EL, Leat SJ. Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Development in Children: Sweep Visually Evoked Potential and Psychophysics. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:830–7.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2017/08000/Visual_Acuity_and_Contrast_Sensitivity_Development.6.aspx Funding/Support: This study was supported by the following grants to ELI: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada Research Chairs, Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and Ontario Innovation Trust; and by a scholarship for FMA from King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. 2. Kulp MT, Ciner E, Maguire M, et al. Attention and Visual Motor Integration in Young Children with Uncorrected Hyperopia. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:965–70.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2017/10000/Attention_and_Visual_Motor_Integration_in_Young.6.aspx Funding/Support: This work was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services R01EY021141, and by the Ohio Lions Eye Research Foundation. The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research. 3. Slota C, Davis SA, Blalock SJ, et al. Patient-Physician Communication on Medication Cost during Glaucoma Visits. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:1095–101.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Fulltext/2017/12000/Patient_Physician_Communication_on_Medication_Cost.5.aspx Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The following authors do not have a financial conflict of interest (CS, SAD, SJB, DMC, KWM, BS). ALR has been a consultant for Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Biolight, DSM, Superior Vision, Aravind Eye Foundation, and Perrigo. The sponsors did not provide financial support, nor had a role in the study design, conduct, analysis and interpretation, or writing of the report. 4. González EG, Tarita-Nistor L, Mandelcorn E, et al. Mechanisms of Image Stabilization in Central Vision Loss: Smooth Pursuit. Optom Vis Sci 2018;95:60–9.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2018/01000/Mechanisms_of_Image_Stabilization_in_Central.9.aspx Funding/Support: Vision Science Research Program at the Toronto Western Hospital (EGG, MJS). 5. McAllister F, Harwerth R, Patel N. Assessing the True Intraocular Pressure in the Non-human Primate. Optom Vis Sci 2018;95:113–9.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2018/02000/Assessing_the_True_Intraocular_Pressure_in_the.6.aspx Funding/Support: National Eye Institute grants K23 EY021761 (NP), R01 EY001139 (RH), T35 EY007088, and P30 EY007551. 6. Fingeret M, Dickerson JE, Jr. The Role of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery Devices in the Management of Glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 2018;95:155–62.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Fulltext/2018/02000/The_Role_of_Minimally_Invasive_Glaucoma_Surgery.12.aspx Conflict of Interest Disclosure: JED is an employee of Alcon. MF is consultant to Aerie, Alcon, Allergan, and B + L. 7. Ravikumar A, Benoit JS, Morrison KB. Repeatability of Monocular Acuity Testing in Adults with and without Down Syndrome. Optom Vis Sci 2018;95:202–11.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2018/03000/Repeatability_of_Monocular_Acuity_Testing_in.6.aspx Funding/Support: National Institutes of Health EY024590 and P30EY007551. 8. Roberts TL, Manny RE, Benoit JS, et al. Impact of Cognitive Demand during Sustained Near Tasks in Children and Adults. Optom Vis Sci 2018;95:223–33.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2018/03000/Impact_of_Cognitive_Demand_during_Sustained_Near.8.aspx Funding/Support: National Eye Institute K23-EY022357 (TLR) and P30-EY007551. 9. Corveleyn X, Lenoble Q, Szaffarczyk S, et al. What Is the Nature of the Reach and Grasp Deficit in Wet Age-related Macular Degeneration? Optom Vis Sci 2018;95:171–82.https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2018/03000/What_Is_the_Nature_of_the_Reach_and_Grasp_Deficit.3.aspx Funding/Support: Société française du glaucome SFG 2015 (XC).
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 | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.101 |
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".