MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005869706 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt729

Astronomical seeing and ground-layer turbulence in the Canadian High Arctic

2013· article· en· W2005869706 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul Hickson, Ronald Gagné, Thomas Pfrommer, Eric Steinbring

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Resources CanadaEurostarsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAltitude (triangle)LatitudePhysicsArcticAtmospheric sciencesThe arcticAtmosphere (unit)PercentileBoundary layerTurbulenceMeteorologyAstronomyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report results of a two-year campaign of measurements, during arctic winter darkness, of optical turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer above the Polar Environment Atmospheric Laboratory in northern Ellesmere Island (latitude +80° N). The data reveal that the ground-layer turbulence in the Arctic is often quite weak, even at the comparatively low 610 m altitude of this site. The median and 25th percentile ground-layer seeing, at a height of 20 m, are found to be 0.57 and 0.25 arcsec, respectively. When combined with a free-atmosphere component of 0.30 arcsec, the median and 25th percentile total seeing for this height is 0.68 and 0.42 arcsec, respectively. The median total seeing from a height of 7 m is estimated to be 0.81 arcsec. These values are comparable to those found at the best high-altitude astronomical sites.

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)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207