MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024105849 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/18/s12

Improvements in strain calibration for the third LIGO science run

2005· article· en· W2024105849 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaDavid and Lucile Packard FoundationCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research, IndiaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLIGOCalibrationPhysicsAstronomical interferometerInterferometrySensitivity (control systems)Fiducial markerAmplitudeOpticsDetectorComputer scienceElectronic engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amplitude calibration procedures have been developed by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) for use in determining the strain sensitivity of the three LIGO interferometers. These frequency-domain procedures rely on a fiducial calibration taken at a reference time t 0 . The calibration is then propagated to all other times during the science run via calibration factors (denoted by α and β), which are derived from sinusoidal length excitations in interferometer cavity lengths. We briefly review the standard calibration methods that were employed in the first two LIGO science runs (S1 and S2), and then describe improvements in calibration procedures implemented during the third science run S3.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207