MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137450293 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040215

Seeing, outer scale of optical turbulence, and coherence outer scale at different astronomical sites using instruments on meteorological balloons

2004· article· en· W2137450293 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. Abahamid, J. Vernin, Z. Benkhaldoun, Abdelhadi Jabiri, M. Azouit, A. Agabi

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Air ForceAgence Universitaire de la FrancophonieNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsTurbulenceBoundary layerCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Atmosphere (unit)Scale (ratio)WavefrontInstrumentation (computer programming)Remote sensingPlanetary boundary layerSurface layerOpticsMeteorologyLayer (electronics)Atmospheric sciencesAstrophysicsMechanicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we analyze 168 optical turbulence profiles made at nine different locations worldwide by means of free flight balloons equipped with instrumentation. Seeing , optical turbulence outer scales Lo, and wavefront outer scales are derived for the different locations and taking into account the contribution of the surface layer [0, 50 m], the boundary layer [0, 1 km] and the free atmosphere [1 km, 30 km]. Noticeable changes are found between the different locations, mainly due to the boundary layer contribution as well as the surface layer contribution. The free atmosphere contribution seems almost the same for each site. There is a very good coherence between the outer scale derived by us and that measured using the Generalized Seeing Monitor (GSM) technique.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207