MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995413453 · doi:10.1086/505938

Calibration of Synthetic Photometry Using DA White Dwarfs

2006· article· en· W1995413453 on OpenAlexaff
J. B. Holberg, P. Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsWhite dwarfPhotometry (optics)AstrophysicsSkyApparent magnitudeVegaPhotometric systemAstronomyEffective temperatureObservatoryStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have calibrated four major ground-based photometric systems with respect to the Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) absolute flux scale, which is defined by Vega and four fundamental DA white dwarfs. These photometric systems include the Johnson-Kron-Cousins UBVRI , the Strömgren uvby filters, the Two Micron All Sky Survey JHK s , and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey ugriz filters. Synthetic magnitudes are calculated from model white dwarf spectra folded through the published filter response functions; these magnitudes in turn are absolutely calibrated with respect to the HST flux scale. Effective zero-magnitude fluxes and zero-point offsets of each system are determined. In order to verify the external observational consistency, as well as to demonstrate the applicability of these definitions, the synthetic magnitudes are compared with the respective observed magnitudes of larger sets of DA white dwarfs that have well-determined effective temperatures and surface gravities and span a wide range in both of these parameters.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations487
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207