MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2066525452 · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/32/1/030

Status of the LIGO-AURIGA Joint Burst Analysis

2006· article· en· W2066525452 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. Poggi, F. Salemi, L. Cadonati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research, IndiaAlfred P. Sloan FoundationDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaDavid and Lucile Packard FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLIGOObservatoryGravitational wavePhysicsCoincidenceAstronomical interferometerDetectorAstronomyGravitational-wave observatoryAstrophysicsComputer scienceOpticsInterferometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recently upgraded AURIGA detector and the LIGO observatory were simultaneously acquiring data for the first time in a 2-weeks period during the LIGO S3 run. This coincidence run motivated a collaborative effort to test search methods for gravitational wave bursts on real data. The adopted method uses broad-band cross correlation for the LIGO interferometers triggered by AURIGA events in the 850-950 Hz band. This paper describes the analysis technique and gives a status report on the search, with emphasis on the tuning procedure. Preliminary network performance and background estimates will be provided.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.302
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference Series→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→