MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088586156 · doi:10.1117/12.789850

The data processing pipeline for the Herschel/SPIRE imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer

2008· article· en· W2088586156 on OpenAlexafffund
T. Fulton, David Naylor, Jean-Paul Baluteau, Matt Griffin, Peter Davis-Imhof, B. M. Swinyard, Tanya Lim, C. Surace, Dave Clements, P. Panuzzo, Rene Gastaud, E. T. Polehampton, S. Guest, Nanyao Lu, Arnold Schwartz, Kevin Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsSpectrometerOpticsRemote sensingSpire (mollusc)Hyperspectral imagingImaging spectrometerCalibrationPhysicsDetectorComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the data processing pipeline to generate calibrated data products from the Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver (SPIRE) imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer. The pipeline processes telemetry from SPIRE point source, jiggle- and raster-map observations, producing calibrated spectra in low-, medium-, high-, and mixed low- and highresolution modes. The spectrometer pipeline shares some elements with the SPIRE photometer pipeline, including the conversion of telemetry packets into data timelines and the calculation of bolometer voltages from the raw telemetry. We present the following fundamental processing steps unique to the spectrometer: temporal and spatial interpolation of the stage mechanism and detector data to create interferograms; apodization; Fourier transform, and creation of a hyperspectral data cube. We also describe the corrections for various instrumental effects including first- and secondlevel glitch identification and removal, correction of the effects due to the Herschel primary mirror and the spectrometer calibrator, interferogram baseline correction, channel fringe correction, temporal and spatial phase correction, non-linear response of the bolometers, variation of instrument performance across the focal plane arrays, and variation of spectral efficiency. Astronomical calibration is based on combinations of observations of standard astronomical sources and regions of space known to contain minimal emission.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.040

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207