MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964892747 · doi:10.1117/12.455101

<title>Layout and packaging of the MOPITT instrument</title>

2002· article· en· W1964892747 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Hackett, Dwight Caldwell, J. R. Drummond, Roger Colley

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of TorontoCOM DEV International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacecraftDetectorEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingOptical instrumentInstrumentation (computer programming)Scientific instrumentAerospace engineeringMeasuring instrumentEMIElectromagnetic interferenceEngineeringComputer scienceOpticsPhysicsElectrical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Measurements Of Pollution In The Troposphere (MOPITT) instrument is one of five instruments flying on NASA's Terra (formerly EOS-AM1) spacecraft that was launched in December 1999. This paper describes the MOPITT instrument mechanical configuration and how it was derived based on system considerations and spacecraft interfaces. These system level considerations include contamination control, EMC/EMI, thermal, optical and structural behavior. The key spacecraft interfaces include mechanical mounting, optical field-of-view (FOV), and thermal transfer. In addition, a detailed discussion is provided for the cryogenic region of the instrument that contains detectors, cold optics, warm optics, and active coolers. Special test fixtures were designed and incorporated in this region of the instrument to permit cooling of the detectors during ambient atmospheric conditions. Some of these test fixtures were designed to fly due to the difficulty in removing them. This utility of operating the instrument's cryogenic detectors within the laboratory environment was extremely beneficial during the instrument optical alignment, EMC testing, and special optical system tests. Final configuring (or closeout) of the instrument's cryogenic region for flight was performed to balance contamination and EMC risks. On-orbit data about the effectiveness of this closeout is provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.022

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207