MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050939513 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/2/38

THE CANADA-FRANCE-HAWAII TELESCOPE LEGACY SURVEY: STACKED IMAGES AND CATALOGS

2012· article· en· W2050939513 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Gwyn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkyPipeline (software)Geological surveyTelescopeComputer scienceSquare (algebra)Service (business)AstrophysicsPhysicsOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the image stacks and catalogs of the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey produced using the MegaPipe data pipeline at the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre. The Legacy Survey is divided into two parts. The Deep Survey consists of four fields each of 1 deg 2 , with magnitude limits (50% completeness for point sources) of u = 27.5, g = 27.9, r = 27.7, i = 27.4, and z = 26.2. It contains 1.6 × 10 6 sources. The Wide Survey consists of 150 deg 2 split over four fields, with magnitude limits of u = 26.0, g = 26.5, r = 25.9, i = 25.7, and z = 24.6. It contains 3 × 10 7 sources. This paper describes the calibration, image stacking, and catalog generation process. The images and catalogs are available on the web through several interfaces: normal image and text file catalog downloads, a "Google Sky" interface, an image cutout service, and a catalog database query service.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.012

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations155
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207