MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1979419635 · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/32/1/006

Report on the search for binary black holes inspiral in S3 LIGO data

2006· article· en· W1979419635 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas Cokelaer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaDavid and Lucile Packard FoundationMax-Planck-GesellschaftCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research, IndiaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLIGOBinary numberPhysicsAstrophysicsAstronomyBinary black holeGravitational waveMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the search for gravitational waves emitted by non-spinning binary black hole inspirals in the data taken during the third LIGO science run (S3). We give an overview of the data acquired during S3 and the target waveforms that we are searching for in this analysis. We briefly describe how the data was filtered using a BCV detection template family (using an hexagonal template bank placement in the mass parameter plane). Finally, we report on preliminary estimates of the sensitivity of the three LIGO detectors using software injections of effective one-body waveforms with component masses in the range 3-40 M⊙ and total mass M ≤ 40 M⊙. We show that during S3, the three LIGO detectors have a detection efficiency of 50% up to several Mpc for L1 and H2, and up to 30 Mpc for H1.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference Series→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→