MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087518707 · doi:10.1117/12.670264

Strategies for estimating mirror and dome seeing for TMT

2006· article· en· W2087518707 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Konstantinos Vogiatzis, George Z. Angeli

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
KeywordsWind speedThermal conductionWind tunnelOpticsEnclosureHeat fluxThermalComputational fluid dynamicsTelescopeDome (geology)Primary mirrorPhysicsMechanicsMeteorologyHeat transferComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mirror and dome seeing greatly influence the optical performance of large ground-based telescopes. This study describes a strategy for modeling the effects of passive ventilation on the optical performance of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) analyses are combined with thermal analyses to model the effects of turbulence and thermal variations within the airflow around the TMT telescope-enclosure configuration. An analytical thermal model based on Newton's cooling law and incorporating a conduction heat flux and a radiation term is used to track the primary mirror temperature throughout the night. A semi-empirical seeing model is used to relate mirror temperature and wind speed to seeing. Different external wind speeds, mirror heat fluxes and ambient thermal temporal gradients are investigated and comparisons are made.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
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

Citations12
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