First performance of the GeMS + GMOS system – 1. Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the commissioning of the Gemini MCAO System (GeMS), we had the opportunity to obtain data with the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS), the most utilized instrument at Gemini South Observatory, in 2012 March and May. Several globular clusters were observed in imaging mode that allowed us to study the performance of this new and untested combination. GMOS is a visible instrument, hence pushing MCAO towards the visible. We report here on the results with the GMOS instruments, derive photometric performance in term of full width at half-maximum (FWHM) and throughput. In most of the cases, we obtained an improvement factor of at least 2 against the natural seeing. This result also depends on the natural guide star constellation selected for the observations and we then study the impact of the guide star selection on the FWHM performance. We also derive a first astrometric analysis showing that the GeMS+GMOS system provide an absolute astrometric precision better than 8 mas and a relative astrometric precision lower than 50 mas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".