MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404709714 · doi:10.2351/7.0001453

Mixed reality for laser safety at advanced optics laboratories

2023· article· en· W4404709714 on OpenAlexaff
Ke Li, Aradhana Choudhuri, Susanne Schmidt, Tino Lang, Reinhard Bacher, Ingmar Hartl, Wim Leemans, Frank Steinicke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular and Laser Science Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaser safetyLaserComputer scienceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, high-power and multi-spectral lasers are increasingly demanded in many scientific experiments and industrial processes. However, direct exposure to these laser sources can lead to permanent eye damage. Individuals conducting research and development with these laser sources are required to wear laser safety goggles as a form of eye protection. Currently, most laser safety goggles are based on optical spectral filters, which could filter up to 99 % of the visible spectrum, rendering researchers working in hazardous and complex laboratory environments visually impaired. In this work, we present a novel laser eye protection method that could provide full-band laser protection without reducing the user's visibility of the environment. We demonstrate a system based on a virtual reality (VR) headset with a stereoscopic see-through camera, which could be constructed in a way that all laser and ambient light is blocked from the human eyes. We revisit an empirical evaluation of our prototype conducted at the laser science and technology group (FS-LA) at DESY with 18 participants, including 14 laser experts. The evaluation results reveal that MR technology has the potential to offer a safe alternative to conventional laser safety goggles and has tremendous prospects in improving the complex and hazardous working conditions at advanced optics laboratories.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOcular and Laser Science ResearchFrench-language works237,207