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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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