Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acknowledgements Determination of Material Properties water content, wet and dry weight, light transmission, centre thickness, surface wettability The water content and wet and dry weight of lenses was determined using the gravimetric method (Sartorius MA 100, Sartorius Canada Inc, Mississauga, Ontario), where the change in weight as the lens was heated to 105°C over the course of 7 minutes was correlated to the water content of the lens. The centre thickness of a fully hydrated lens was measured using a contact lens thickness gauge (Vigor Contact Lens Thickness Gauge, Vigor Optical, Carlstadt, New Jersey). To determine the light transmission, individual lenses and 1 mL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) were placed into wells of a 24 well plate, and a wavelength scan from 300 nm to 750 nm was conducted using a plate reader (Spectramax M5 Microplate reader, Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, California). The advancing contact angle, a measure of the surface wettability, was determined using the sessile drop method employing the Optical Contact Analyzer (OCA, Dataphysics Instruments GmbH, Filderstadt, Germany). A fully hydrated lens was removed from the PBS soaking solution, and the surface dried on lens paper for 20 seconds before being placed on a custom designed lens holder. 5 μL of High Performance Liquid Chromatography water was dispensed from a syringe, and an image of the contact of the water droplet with the lens surface after settling captured using a high speed camera. The contact angle between the settled drop and the lens surface was analyzed using custom software (SCA 20 software, Version 2.04, Build 4).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".