Bibliographic record
Abstract
Happy New Year and welcome to 2014.We saw a lot of exciting things in 2013, including a near miss with an asteroid, confirmation of water on Mars, more record-breaking weather here on earth, and the further embedding of technology in our daily lives.The display industry saw encouraging signs of better economic times to come and more new innovations than I can remember seeing in a long time.Of course, as I wrote about in November, we finally saw the commercial launch of large-format OLED TVs.This much anticipated milestone was an important vindicating step for those companies that have invested so much in research, development, and infrastructure to get products into consumers' hands.But if you followed along in ID for the past year, OLED TVs were only one small part of a great many advances we saw and reported on.We also saw our first Display Week event held outside the U.S., in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada -which also happened to be our 50th SID Symposium and Exhibition.I did not attend all 50, but I've probably been to at least half of them by now.Vancouver was a great destination and San Diego will be just as much fun with even more new things to see and do.This year begins our second with the new six-issue calendar.The amount of great contributions from all over the display industry continues to grow and our backlog continues to grow too.We try to pick the very best topics from everything we see, and some become running themes we cover for many issues or even across multiple years.As we look into 2014, we are anticipating a variety of interesting topics, including our regulars such as touch/interactivity, LCDs and OLEDs, metrology, materials, and flexible displays.We also expect to see more great advances in some recent hot topics such as 3D/holography, oxide semiconductors, and paper electronics.Our full calendar for 2014 is available on the Web site.Our issue themes this month revolve around materials, flexible displays, and e-paper.By now you have probably already noticed something different about this first issue of 2014.Our cover features one of the most interesting creatures in nature -the cuttlefish.Why, you ask, would we feature a rather strange looking mollusk on our cover and what does it have to do with displays?Well, we were asking ourselves the same question until we read the first draft of our cover story, "Dynamic Displays in Nature," by authors Lydia M. Mäthger and Roger T. Hanlon from the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.Cuttlefish, squid, and octopus belong to a class of cephalopods that are able to change the pattern and color of their skin in remarkable ways for both camouflage and communication.Similar to chameleons, these creatures have biological mechanisms in their bodies that allow their skin to literally be a type of display.As we search for new and innovative ways to create flexible displays, there may be many exciting things we can learn from nature, and this article reveals the secrets of how these intricate biological skin-displays really work.It's not a new concept, borrowing from nature for cues for display research.Countless optical and material science discoveries have been based on observations of the natural world.One example is the principle for Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) displays developed by Qualcomm, which is based on the same natural phenomenon that makes a butterfly's wings or a peacock's feathers shimmer and reflect the sun's light into highly diverse and saturated colors.So, it's really no surprise that we may someday make displays with the same principal methods as nature
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.393 | 0.340 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".