MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003176404 · doi:10.1364/ol.31.002127

Impact of telescope seeing on laser adaptive optics

2006· article· en· W2003176404 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Hickson

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive opticsTelescopeWavefrontOpticsTilt (camera)PhysicsOptical telescopeLaser guide starOptical pathReflecting telescopeDeformable mirrorLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atmospheric turbulence in the internal light path of a telescope produces noncommon path phase differences that degrade the image quality of adaptive-optics systems employing laser guide stars. The spatial covariance and rms wavefront errors produced by this effect are derived. It is found that the tilt-removed wavefront error ranges from about 12 nm for a representative 30 m telescope to 59 nm for a 100 m telescope of similar optical design. For adaptive-optics systems that aim to derive tip-tilt information from the laser guide stars the error is considerably larger, ranging from 22 nm for the 30 m telescope to 256 nm for the 100 m telescope. This effect can be a significant impediment to the performance of such systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207