Thermalizing a telescope in Antarctica – analysis of ASTEP observations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The installation and operation of a telescope in Antarctica represent particular challenges, in particular the requirement to operate at extremely cold temperatures, to cope with rapid temperature fluctuations and to prevent frosting. Heating of electronic subsystems is a necessity, but solutions must be found to avoid the turbulence induced by temperature fluctuations on the optical paths. ASTEP 400 is a 40cm Newton telescope installed at the Concordia station, Dome C since 2010 for photometric observations of fields of stars and their exoplanets. While the telescope is designed to spread star light on several pixels to maximize photometric stability, we show that it is nonetheless sensitive to the extreme variations of the seeing at the ground level (between about 0′′.1 and 5′′) and to temperature fluctuations between –30°C and –80 °C. We analyze both day‐time and night‐time observations and obtain the magnitude of the seeing caused by the mirrors, dome and camera. The most important effect arises from the heating of the primary mirror which gives rise to a mirror seeing of 0′′.23 K –1 . We propose solutions to mitigate these effects. (© 2015 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it