The Large Petal Telescope for the Next Generation Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considered until recently one of the best telescopes in the world, the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) is now bypassed by larger telescopes. Aware of this problem, the CFHT Science Advisory Council (SAC) solicited proposals from the CFH community groups to replace the present telescope by a world-class research facility before the end of the decade. A report describing our proposal is available on our web site (www.astrsp-mrs.fr/denis/ngcfht/ngcfht.html). The motivation to design and build a new telescope is often driven by the astronomers need to observe fainter and fainter sources. The basis of the next generation CFHT (NG-CFHT) is therefore to increase the size of the primary mirror to reach fainter and more remote objects in the luminosity functions. But beyond this photon quest , the way we use the photons is also very important. The development of new technologies will permit an optimization of performances and a better image quality thanks to state-of-the-art instruments on state-of-the-art telescopes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".