MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075789129 · doi:10.1117/12.927026

Space environment challenges with the tunable Fabry-Pérot etalon for the JWST fine guidance sensor

2012· article· en· W2075789129 on OpenAlexaff
C. S. Haley, Niladri Roy, Zeljko Osman, Neil Rowlands, Alan Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsCOM DEV International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFabry–Pérot interferometerJames Webb Space TelescopeSolar telescopeSpectrographMaterials scienceOpticsRemote sensingAerospace engineeringTelescopeEnvironmental sciencePhysicsEngineeringAstronomyLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS) on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has a science observing capability that was to be provided by a tunable Fabry-Pérot etalon incorporating dielectric coated etalon plates with a small vacuum gap and piezoelectric actuators (PZTs). The JWST etalon was more challenging than our existing ground-based operational systems due to the low-order gap, the extremely wide waveband and the environmental specifications. Difficulties were encountered in providing the required performance due to variability in the mechanical gap after exposure to the vibration, shock and cryogenic cycling environments required for the JWST mission. The risks associated with operating the flight model etalon in the space environment, along with changes in scientific priorities, resulted in the etalon being replaced by the grism-based Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS). We describe here the performance of the etalon system and the unresolved risks that contributed to the decision to change the flight instrument.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2012
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