MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986469215 · doi:10.1086/383210

A Strategy for Finding Near-Earth Objects with the SDSS Telescope

2004· article· en· W1986469215 on OpenAlexaff
Sean N. Raymond, G. Miknaitis, Oliver J. Fraser, Arti Garg, Suzanne L. Hawley, Robert Jedicke, Thomas Quinn, Constance M. Rockosi, C. W. Stubbs, Scott F. Anderson, Craig J. Hogan, Željko Ivezić, Robert H. Lupton, Andrew A. West, H. Brewington, J. Brinkmann, Michael Harvanek, S. J. Kleinman, J. Krzesiński, Dan Long, Eric H. Neilsen, Peter R. Newman, A. Nitta, Stephanie A. Snedden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkyLimiting magnitudeLarge Synoptic Survey TelescopePhysicsTelescopeAstrophysicsMagnitude (astronomy)AstronomyApparent magnitudeAlbedo (alchemy)PopulationRemote sensingAbsolute magnitudeGeographyGalaxyStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a detailed observational strategy for finding Near Earth Objects (NEOs) with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) telescope. We investigate strategies in normal, unbinned mode as well as binning the CCDs 2x2 or 3x3, which affects the sky coverage rate and the limiting apparent magnitude. We present results from 1 month, 3 year and 10 year simulations of such surveys. For each cadence and binning mode, we evaluate the possibility of achieving the Spaceguard goal of detecting 90% of 1 km NEOs (absolute magnitude H <= 18 for an albedo of 0.1). We find that an unbinned survey is most effective at detecting H <= 20 NEOs in our sample. However, a 3x3 binned survey reaches the Spaceguard Goal after only seven years of operation. As the proposed large survey telescopes (PanStarss; LSST) are at least 5-10 years from operation, an SDSS NEO survey could make a significant contribution to the detection and photometric characterization of the NEO population.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207