MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965135197 · doi:10.1117/12.926916

Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope image quality improvement initiative: thermal assay of the observing environment

2012· article· en· W1965135197 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karun Thanjavur, Kevin Ho, Sarah Gajadhar, Marc Baril, Tom Benedict, Steve Bauman, Derrick Salmon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDome (geology)ObservatoryRemote sensingTerrainTelescopeEnvironmental scienceSkyRidgeGeologyMeteorologyGeographyPhysicsGeomorphologyOpticsAstronomyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the image quality (IQ) assessment and improvement initiative being carried out at the 3.6m Canada France Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, our objective in the work reported here is to obtain a systematic assay of thermal sources within the dome and in the summit environment around the observatory, and therefore mitigate their contributions to convective instability leading to 'dome seeing'. Toward this, we undertook a nighttime overflight to capture thermal images with a calibrated infrared camera of the outer structures of CFHT and the neighboring observatories on the summit ridge, as well as of a significant area of the surrounding terrain. The same thermal camera was then used to image heat sources within the dome. Using a convective heat transfer model, all these measured surface temperatures were converted to heat fluxes, and thus used to build a thermal assay of the dome. In addition, using button type temperature loggers, we simultaneously recorded the nighttime dome skin temperatures of CFHT and two other observatories over a weeklong period to evaluate nighttime supercooling of the dome skin due to radiation to the cold night sky. As a complementary goal we compared the efficacy of different paints and coatings used in observatories to minimize this effect. Though similar studies have been carried out at other observatories, the results are rarely available in published literature. Therefore, here we explain our methodologies, along with a detailed discussion of our results and inferences to serve as a useful resource to the larger observing community.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207