MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104710165 · doi:10.1086/588542

The Balloon‐borne Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (BLAST) 2005: Calibration and Targeted Sources

2008· article· en· W2104710165 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelescopeCalibrationAperture (computer memory)Flux (metallurgy)AmplitudeSubmillimeter ArraySubmillimeter wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Balloon-borne Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (BLAST) operated successfully during a 100 hr flight from northern Sweden in 2005 June (BLAST05). As part of the calibration and pointing procedures, several compact sources were mapped, including solar system, Galactic, and extragalactic targets, specifically Pallas, CRL 2688, LDN 1014, IRAS 20126+4104, IRAS 21078+5211, IRAS 21307+5049, IRAS 22134+5834, IRAS 23011+6126, K3-50, W75N, and Mrk 231. One additional source, Arp 220, was observed and used as our primary calibrator. Details of the overall BLAST05 calibration procedure are discussed here. The BLAST observations of each compact source are described, flux densities and spectral energy distributions are reported, and these are compared with previous measurements at other wavelengths. The 250, 350, and 500 μm BLAST data can provide useful constraints to the amplitude and slope of the submillimeter continuum, which in turn may be useful for the improved calibration of other submillimeter instruments.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207