MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087497833 · doi:10.1063/1.4866682

Measuring coalignment of retroreflectors with large lateral incoming-outgoing beam offset

2014· article· en· W2087497833 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel Schütze, David I. Farrant, D. A. Shaddock, Benjamin Sheard, Gerhard Heinzel, K. Danzmann

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlzheimer Society Research ProgramDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungAustralian Government
KeywordsRetroreflectorOpticsInterferometryFizeau interferometerOffset (computer science)Beam (structure)PhysicsCorner reflectorAstronomical interferometerLaser beam qualityLaserLaser beamsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method based on phase-shifting Fizeau interferometry is presented with which retroreflectors with large incoming-outgoing beam separations can be tested. The method relies on a flat Reference Bar that is used to align two auxiliary mirrors parallel to each other to extend the aperture of the interferometer. The method is applied to measure the beam coalignment of a prototype Triple Mirror Assembly of the GRACE Follow-On Laser Ranging Interferometer, a future satellite-to-satellite tracking device for Earth gravimetry. The Triple Mirror Assembly features a lateral beam offset of incoming and outgoing beam of 600 mm, whereas the acceptance angle for the incoming beam is only about ±2 mrad. With the developed method, the beam coalignment of the prototype Triple Mirror Assembly was measured to be 9 μrad with a repeatability of below 1 μrad.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207