MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012655519 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/414

CLEANING THE USNO-B CATALOG THROUGH AUTOMATIC DETECTION OF OPTICAL ARTIFACTS

2007· article· en· W2012655519 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

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpurious relationshipStarsSkyHaloVirtual observatoryPhysicsComputer scienceOutlierAstrophysicsReflection (computer programming)DiffractionAstronomyArtificial intelligenceOpticsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The USNO-B Catalog contains spurious entries that are caused by diffraction spikes and circular reflection halos around bright stars in the original imaging data. These spurious entries appear in the Catalog as if they were real stars; they are confusing for some scientific tasks. The spurious entries can be identified by simple computer vision techniques because they produce repeatable patterns on the sky. Some techniques employed here are variants of the Hough transform, one of which is sensitive to (two-dimensional) overdensities of faint stars in thin right-angle cross patterns centered on bright (< 13 mag) stars, and one of which is sensitive to thin annular overdensities centered on very bright (< 7 mag) stars. After enforcing conservative statistical requirements on spurious-entry identifications, we find that of the 1,042,618,261 entries in the USNO-B Catalog, 24,148,382 of them (2.3 percent) are identified as spurious by diffraction-spike criteria and 196,133 (0.02 percent) are identified as spurious by reflection-halo criteria. The spurious entries are often detected in more than 2 bands and are not overwhelmingly outliers in any photometric properties; they therefore cannot be rejected easily on other grounds, ie, without the use of computer vision techniques. We demonstrate our method, and return to the community in electronic form a table of spurious entries in the Catalog. Subject headings: astrometry — catalogs — methods: statistical — standards — techniques: image processing 1

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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