SEVEN-YEAR <i>WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE</i> ( <i>WMAP</i> ) OBSERVATIONS: PLANETS AND CELESTIAL CALIBRATION SOURCES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present WMAP seven-year observations of bright sources which are often used as calibrators at microwave frequencies. Ten objects are studied in five frequency bands (23–94 GHz): the outer planets (Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) and five fixed celestial sources (Cas A, Tau A, Cyg A, 3C274, and 3C58). The seven-year analysis of Jupiter provides temperatures which are within 1σ of the previously published WMAP five-year values, with slightly tighter constraints on variability with orbital phase (0.2% ± 0.4%), and limits (but no detections) on linear polarization. Observed temperatures for both Mars and Saturn vary significantly with viewing geometry. Scaling factors are provided which, when multiplied by the Wright Mars thermal model predictions at 350 μm, reproduce WMAP seasonally averaged observations of Mars within ∼2%. An empirical model is described which fits brightness variations of Saturn due to geometrical effects and can be used to predict the WMAP observations to within 3%. Seven-year mean temperatures for Uranus and Neptune are also tabulated. Uncertainties in Uranus temperatures are 3%–4% in the 41, 61, and 94 GHz bands; the smallest uncertainty for Neptune is 8% for the 94 GHz band. Intriguingly, the spectrum of Uranus appears to show a dip at ∼30 GHz of unidentified origin, although the feature is not of high statistical significance. Flux densities for the five selected fixed celestial sources are derived from the seven-year WMAP sky maps and are tabulated for Stokes I , Q , and U , along with polarization fraction and position angle. Fractional uncertainties for the Stokes I fluxes are typically 1% to 3%. Source variability over the seven-year baseline is also estimated. Significant secular decrease is seen for Cas A and Tau A: our results are consistent with a frequency-independent decrease of about 0.53% per year for Cas A and 0.22% per year for Tau A. We present WMAP polarization data with uncertainties of a few percent for Tau A. Where appropriate, WMAP results are compared against previous findings in the literature. With an absolute calibration uncertainty of 0.2%, WMAP data are a valuable asset for calibration work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".