MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134449799 · doi:10.1364/ao.39.005651

Optical tests of a 37-m-diameter liquid mirror: behavior under external perturbations

2000· article· en· W2134449799 on OpenAlexaff
Grégoire Tremblay, E. F. Borra

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsBall (mathematics)Mercury (programming language)Materials scienceVibrationRefractive indexPhysicsAcousticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We built and tested a 3.7-m-diameter liquid mirror that rotates on a ball bearing. Although the ball bearing is of a poor quality, the mirror is surprisingly good for one that comprises 1-mm-thick mercury layers. We found no evidence of the strong astigmatism that might have been expected from Coriolis forces. We did not detect effects of turbulence might or vibrations for thin mercury layers, illustrating the necessity of using thin layers: Large liquid mirrors would have had unacceptable optical qualities for layers much thicker than 2 mm.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations19
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207