MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076893397 · doi:10.1117/12.670169

Design tradeoffs for a high spectral resolution mid-infrared echelle spectrograph on the Thirty-Meter Telescope

2006· article· en· W2076893397 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. T. Tokunaga, Tim Bond, J. H. Elias, Mark Chun, Matthew J. Richter, Larry Daggert, E. V. Tollestrup, Michael E. Ressler, David W. Warren, S. Fisher, J. Carr

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationResearch and Innovation FoundationGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpectrographTelescopeSpectral resolutionDetectorOpticsMetreRemote sensingAdaptive opticsFirst lightInfrared telescopePhysicsComputer scienceAstronomyGeologyLight source

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A feasibility design study was undertaken to assess the requirements of a mid-infrared echelle spectrograph (MIRES) with a resolving power of 120,000 and its associated mid-infrared adaptive optics (MIRAO) system on the Thirty-Meter Telescope. Our baseline design incorporates a 2K×2K Si:As array or array mosaic for the spectrograph and a 1K×1K Si:As array for the slit viewer. Various tradeoffs were studied to minimize risk and to optimize the sensitivity of the instrument. Major challenges are to integrate the spectrograph to the MIRAO system and, later, to an adaptive secondary, the procurement of a suitable window and large KRS-5 lenses, and the acquisition of large format mid-IR detector arrays suitable for the range of background conditions. We conclude that the overall risk is relatively low and there is no technical reason that should prevent this instrument from being ready for use at first light on the Thirty- Meter Telescope.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.213
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.

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

Citations6
Published2006
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