MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041486336 · doi:10.1086/378869

<i>PASP</i>Associate Editor for Instrumentation

2003· article· en· W2041486336 on OpenAlexaff
A. P. Cowley, David Hartwick

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAstronomical Observations and Instrumentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumentation (computer programming)Computer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the past 10 years Dr. J. B. Oke has served the PASP and the community as the Associate Editor for Instrumentation. For personal reasons he has asked to step down, and in consultation with him we sought a new PASP Associate Editor for Instrumentation. We are delighted to announce that the ASP Board of Directors has endorsed the appointment of two extremely wellqualified astronomers to share the responsibility of this position. They are Dr. Daniel Fabricant of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Dr. Harland Epps of UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz. Both have been involved in numerous instrumentation projects and have also been regular contributors to the PASP. The transition to the new Associate Editors for Instrumentation will begin immediately. Dr. Oke has agreed to continue to handle the manuscripts he is now working with, but all new instrumentation papers will be transferred to the new editors. Authors should continue to submit their astronomical instrumentation papers to the PASP ftp site in Victoria (see the instructions at http://pasp.phys.uvic.ca). Similarly, any hardcopy manuscripts should be sent to the main office in Victoria:

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1390.182

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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the PacificSame topicAstronomical Observations and InstrumentationFrench-language works237,207