MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068383874 · doi:10.1117/12.460340

The CFHT MegaCam 40 CCDs camera: cryogenic design and CCD integration

2003· article· en· W2068383874 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stéphan Aune, O. Boulade, X. Charlot, P. Abbon, P. Borgeaud, Pierre-Henri Carton, M. Carty, J. Da Costa, D. Desforge, H. Deschamps, D. Eppellé, P. Gallais, L. Gösset, R. Granelli, M. Gros, J. de Kat, D. Loiseau, J.-L. Ritou, Jean Y. Roussé, Pierre Starzynski, N. Vignal, Laurent Vigroux

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryostatTelescopeOpticsField of viewPhysicsPixelAperture (computer memory)ObservatoryCryogenicsMaterials scienceRemote sensingAcousticsGeologySuperconductivityAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MegaCam is an imaging camera with a 1 square degree field of view for the new prime focus of the 3.6 meter Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. In building the MegaCam mosaic we encountered unprecedented challenges from both the large size of each CCD device (2K x 4.5K with 13.5 micron square pixels each) and the large size of the mosaic in which 40 devices have been assembled in a nearly 4-buttable edge manner on a cold plate. The CCD mosaic flatness of ± 16 μm has been optically checked at its nominal functioning temperature. The CCD mosaic is cooled at 153 K with a cryogenic unit; a close cycle pulsed tube with a power of 90 W at 140 K. A cold capacity, allows a slow warm-up during cooling shutdowns and a thermal dispatching leads to a temperature uniformity better than 3 K on the whole mosaic. The camera cryostat is designed in order to have easy access to the CCDs. The vacuum needed to avoid CCD contamination, leaded us to the use of low out-gassing materials in the cryostat. The instrument was delivered to the observatory on June 10, 2002 and first light is scheduled in October 2002.

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)0.001
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 score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207