MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001467360 · doi:10.1117/12.858110

Engineering within the assembly, verification, and integration (AIV) process in ALMA

2010· article· en· W2001467360 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bernhard Lopez, J. P. McMullin, Nicholas D. Whyborn, Eugene Duvall

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Natural SciencesNational Radio Astronomy ObservatoryNational Research Council CanadaAcademia SinicaNational Science CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMillimeterAntenna (radio)Submillimeter ArrayInstrumentation (computer programming)Systems engineeringProcess (computing)Computer scienceRemote sensingEngineeringAerospace engineeringTelecommunicationsPhysicsGeologyAstronomyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) is a joint project between astronomical organizations in Europe, North America, and East Asia, in collaboration with the Republic of Chile. ALMA will consist of at least 54 twelve-meter antennas and 12 seven-meter antennas operating as an interferometer in the millimeter and sub-millimeter wavelength range. It will be located at an altitude above 5000m in the Chilean Atacama desert. As part of the ALMA construction phase the Assembly, Verification and Integration (AIV) team receives antennas and instrumentation from Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), verifies that the sub-systems perform as expected, performs the assembly and integration of the scientific instrumentation and verifies that functional and performance requirements are met. This paper aims to describe those aspects related to the AIV Engineering team, its role within the 4-station AIV process, the different phases the group underwent, lessons learned and potential space for improvement. AIV Engineering initially focused on the preparation of the necessary site infrastructure for AIV activities, on the purchase of tools and equipment and on the first ALMA system installations. With the first antennas arriving on site the team started to gather experience with AIV Station 1 beacon holography measurements for the assessment of the overall antenna surface quality, and with optical pointing to confirm the antenna pointing and tracking capabilities. With the arrival of the first receiver AIV Station 2 was developed which focuses on the installation of electrical and cryogenic systems and incrementally establishes the full connectivity of the antenna as an observing platform. Further antenna deliveries then allowed to refine the related procedures, develop staff expertise and to transition towards a more routine production process. Stations 3 and 4 deal with verification of the antenna with integrated electronics by the AIV Science Team and is not covered directly in this paper. It is believed that both continuous improvement and the clear definition of the AIV 4-station model were key factors in achieving the goal of bringing the antennas into a state that is well enough characterized in order to smoothly start commissioning activities.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207