MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223253813 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527313

Comparison of absolute gain photometric calibration between<i>Planck</i>/HFI and<i>Herschel</i>/SPIRE at 545 and 857 GHz

2016· article· en· W2223253813 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaTekesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationChina Scholarship CouncilCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesPartnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBLMax-Planck-GesellschaftUK Space AgencyScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsSpire (mollusc)CalibrationAbsolute magnitudeMeasure (data warehouse)Range (aeronautics)Flux (metallurgy)PixelPlanetEmission spectrum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compare the absolute gain photometric calibration of the Planck/HFI and Herschel/SPIRE instruments on diffuse emission. The absolute calibration of HFI and SPIRE each relies on planet flux measurements and comparison with theoretical far-infrared emission models of planetary atmospheres. We measure the photometric cross calibration between the instruments at two overlapping bands, 545 GHz/500 μm and 857 GHz/350 μm. The SPIRE maps used have been processed in the Herschel Interactive Processing Environment (Version 12) and the HFI data are from the 2015 Public Data Release 2. For our study we used 15 large fields observed with SPIRE, which cover a total of about 120 deg2. We have selected these fields carefully to provide high signal-to-noise ratio, avoid residual systematics in the SPIRE maps, and span a wide range of surface brightness. The HFI maps are bandpass-corrected to match the emission observed by the SPIRE bandpasses. The SPIRE maps are convolved to match the HFI beam and put on a common pixel grid. We measure the cross-calibration relative gain between the instruments using two methods in each field, pixel-to-pixel correlation and angular power spectrum measurements. The SPIRE/HFI relative gains are 1.047 (±0.0069) and 1.003 (±0.0080) at 545 and 857 GHz, respectively, indicating very good agreement between the instruments. These relative gains deviate from unity by much less than the uncertainty of the absolute extended emission calibration, which is about 6.4% and 9.5% for HFI and SPIRE, respectively, but the deviations are comparable to the values 1.4% and 5.5% for HFI and SPIRE if the uncertainty from models of the common calibrator can be discounted. Of the 5.5% uncertainty for SPIRE, 4% arises from the uncertainty of the effective beam solid angle, which impacts the adopted SPIRE point source to extended source unit conversion factor, highlighting that as a focus for refinement.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207