MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2481922120 · doi:10.1117/12.2232436

Data reduction software for the Mid-Infrared E-ELT Imager and Spectrograph (METIS) for the European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT)

2016· article· en· W2481922120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Mach, R. Köhler, O. Czoske, Kieran Leschinski, W. W. Zeilinger, Wolfgang Kausch, T. Ratzka, M. Leitzinger, R. Greimel, Norbert Przybilla, V. Schaffenroth, M. Güdel, Bernhard R. Brandl

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectrographMetisSoftwareTelescopeInfraredData reductionReduction (mathematics)Remote sensingComputer sciencePhysicsAstronomyGeologyOperating systemMathematicsSpectral lineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the current status of the design of the science data reduction pipeline and the corresponding dataflow system for METIS. It will be one of the first three instruments for the E-ELT and work at wavelengths between 3-19 μm (L/M/N/Q1 bands). We will deliver software which is compliant to standards of the European Southern Observatory (ESO), and will employ state of the art techniques to produce science grade data, master calibration frames, quality control parameters and to handle instrument effects. The Instrument currently offers a wealth of observing modes that are listed in this paper. Data reduction for a ground based instrument at these wavelengths is particularly challenging because of the massive influence of thermal radiation from various sources. We will give a comprehensive overview of the data ow system for the imaging modes that the instrument offers and discuss a single recipe versus a multi recipe approach for the different observing modes for imaging.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207