MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Early Advanced LIGO binary neutron-star sky localization and parameter estimation

2016· article· en· W2417328436 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoPerimeter Institute
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsSkyLIGOBinary numberDegeneracy (biology)PopulationEstimation theoryComponent (thermodynamics)Detector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2015 will see the first observations of Advanced LIGO and the start of the gravitational-wave (GW) advanced-detector era. One of the most promising sources for ground- based GW detectors are binary neutron-star (BNS) coalescences. In order to use any detections for astrophysics, we must understand the capabilities of our parameter-estimation analysis. By simulating the GWs from an astrophysically motivated population of BNSs, we examine the accuracy of parameter inferences in the early advanced-detector era. We find that sky location, which is important for electromagnetic follow-up, can be determined rapidly (∼ 5 s), but that sky areas may be hundreds of square degrees. The degeneracy between component mass and spin means there is significant uncertainty for measurements of the individual masses and spins; however, the chirp mass is well measured (typically better than 0.1%).

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference Series→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→