MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996912737 · doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2003.10.004

Discovering and securing TNOs: the CFHTLS Ecliptic survey

2003· article· en· W1996912737 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Marc Petit, Brett Gladman

Bibliographic record

VenueComptes Rendus Physique · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclipticPhysicsAstronomyPopulationSolar SystemLarge Synoptic Survey TelescopeObservational astronomyAsteroidAstrophysicsTelescope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have developed an international collaboration aimed at discovering and long-term tracking of a large Trans-Neptunian Object (TNO) sample. The scientific rationale behind this extended observational effort is to understand the dynamical structure of the outer Solar System. This structure provides a unique tracer of planetary accretion processes and constrains models of formation and early evolution of our outer Solar System. Our observational program is designed to first discover a large sample of TNOs in well characterized surveys and then track them in a manner which will avoid what we call ‘follow-up bias’. We first briefly describe the current status of our current observational knowledge of the Kuiper Belt. Next we show how following-up almost all objects discovered in a survey has changed our view of the dynamical structure of the Kuiper Belt. Thanks to our work, previously empty places have been filled in, the relative importance of the then known dynamical population have been largely modified, and a new, potentially very large, population have been discovered. Discoveries presented in this paper were done at CFHT, while recoveries were performed on multiple telescopes, including in particular the ESO telescopes and the MPIA telescopes in Calar Alto (Spain). Finally, we briefly describe the ecliptic component of the CFHT Legacy Survey for which Kuiper Belt science is the main driver. Our experience with discovery and follow-up observations has led us to design an efficient time-sequence of observations for this survey.

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)0.001
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComptes Rendus PhysiqueSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207