MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007023244 · doi:10.1086/429307

Altitude, Elevation, and Seeing

2005· article· en· W2007023244 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAltitude (triangle)Elevation (ballistics)Log-normal distributionLapse rateDispersion (optics)QuartileRangingEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesTurbulenceScale (ratio)MeteorologyGeodesyOpticsGeologyMathematicsPhysicsGeographyStatisticsAstronomyCartographyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seeing data from 41 campaigns at 23 sites ranging in altitude from 1130 to 5150 m and elevations between 1 and 30 m above grade are used to calibrate and test a simple seeing model that only involves altitude and elevation. The model is consistent with in situ studies of optical turbulence, reproducing measured median seeing values with a dispersion of 0096, while at multiple‐campaign sites the actual data show a dispersion of 0092. Surface‐layer turbulence is the characteristic that varies the most between campaigns and sites and is generally the dominant contribution to seeing at low elevations, the resulting image blur decreasing with a scale height of 3.5 m. The seeing distributions are lognormal at all sites, with quartile‐to‐median ratios of 4/5 and 5/4.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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