MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043736367 · doi:10.1117/12.670002

TMT wind model validation with measurements on Keck and Gemini

2006· article· en· W2043736367 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Toomas Erm, George Z. Angeli

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTelescopeWind speedTorqueElevation (ballistics)Environmental scienceDisturbance (geology)AeroelasticityMountComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)MeteorologyAerodynamicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringPhysicsGeologyControl (management)Astronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind disturbance is an important parameter in the assessment of telescope performance, especially for extremely large telescopes like TMT. In the process of estimating the response of the TMT telescope structure to wind buffeting, we were carrying out measurements on the Keck and Gemini observatories in order to better understand the possible variations in the wind response of these different telescopes. The measurements were used to validate the TMT wind model as well as explaining the mechanism through which the wind disturbances affect the pointing of the elevation axis. We were estimating the wind torque acting on the elevation axis from the measured Disturbance Transfer Function and Position Error of the mount control. Furthermore, the quality of the correlation between wind speed and torque disturbance were investigated to evaluate the feasibility of mitigating the wind disturbance by introducing feed-forward or adaptive control schemes in the mount control.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207