MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554333313 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/20/001

Status of LIGO data analysis

2004· article· en· W1554333313 on OpenAlexfundno aff
G. González

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMax-Planck-GesellschaftCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research, IndiaAlfred P. Sloan FoundationDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaDavid and Lucile Packard FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLIGOPhysicsData analysisData scienceAstronomyGravitational waveData miningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration has completed the analysis of the data from its first science run (Aug-Sep 2002), is far along in the analysis of the second science run (Feb-April 2003), and is beginning the analysis of data taken during its third science run (Nov 2003-Jan 2004). We present in this paper an overview of the performance of the instruments during the science runs, of the data analysis efforts completed so far and of the plans for the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207