MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7153578726 · doi:10.1353/hah.2025.a987646

Air Vice Marshall Sir Philip Livingston: Ophthalmologist and Aviation Researcher

2025· article· en· W7153578726 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shayne Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and History · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAviationAviation medicineWorld War IISAFERMilitary aviationFirst world war

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Air Vice-Marshal Sir Philip Clermont Livingston (1893–1982) was a Canadian-born British-trained ophthalmologist who made a significant contribution to aviation ophthalmology in Great Britain and in Australia. After joining the Royal Air Force Medical Branch in 1919, he combined clinical expertise and research with personal flying experience to challenge rigid visual requirements. His research into the effects of glare, night vision, defective ocular motility, depth perception, and the effects of hypoxia informed RAF and RAAF policy during World War II, leading to safer flying standards. Rising to director-general of RAF Medical Services, Livingston also advanced women's roles in military medicine and oversaw medical support during the Berlin and Korean airlifts. Despite his influence, little has been written about him. This paper examines his contributions to aviation ophthalmology and his influence on setting ocular standards for pilots during WWII in the RAF and RAAF.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.015

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and HistorySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207