MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330644066 · doi:10.2514/6.2014-4422

Validating Microsatellite Star Tracker Baffle Tests

2014· article· en· W2330644066 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Marciniak, John Enright

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAstronomical Observations and Instrumentation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersUniversity of Colorado BoulderVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVSpace Telescope Science Institute
KeywordsBaffleStar (game theory)Computer scienceStar trackerPhysicsAstronomyEngineeringAstrophysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the historical challenges of atmospheric stray light testing for star trackers relevant to small research groups. We define optical system attenuation targets for a baffled star tracker system using a probabilistic analysis of false detection rates that is independent of a baffle design. Using our hybridized stray light analysis techniques, we obtain attenuation curves for the Sinclair Interplanetary ST-16 baffled star tracker, and we validate our analysis by performing stray light analysis on the baffle independently from the sensor. Solar exclusion angles are defined by combining the attenuation targets and the system attenuation curve, of which we explore in-depth by using ray tracing path information from Zemax OpticStudio 14. These techniques should prove invaluable for small research groups who do not have the financial means to expedite the stray light analysis of their star tracker system to a professional third party laboratory.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist ConferenceSame topicAstronomical Observations and InstrumentationFrench-language works237,207