Gain and Polarization Properties of a Large Radio Telescope from Calculation and Measurement: The John A. Galt Telescope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of the brightness temperature of extended radio emission demands knowledge of the gain (or aperture efficiency) of the telescope and measurement of the polarized component of the emission requires correction for the conversion of unpolarized emission from sky and ground to apparently polarized signal. Radiation properties of the John A. Galt Telescope at the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory were studied through analysis and measurement in order to provide absolute calibration of a survey of polarized emission from the entire northern sky from 1280 to 1750 MHz, and to understand the polarization performance of the telescope. Electromagnetic simulation packages CST and GRASP-10 were used to compute complete radiation patterns of the telescope in all Stokes parameters, and thereby to establish gain and aperture efficiency. Aperture efficiency was also evaluated using geometrical optics and ray tracing analysis and was measured based on the known flux density of Cyg A. Measured aperture efficiency varied smoothly with frequency between values of 0.49 and 0.54; GRASP-10 yielded values 6.5% higher but with closely similar variation with frequency. Overall error across the frequency band is 3%, but values at any two frequencies are relatively correct to ∼1%. Dominant influences on aperture efficiency are the illumination taper of the feed radiation pattern and the shadowing of the reflector from the feed by the feed-support struts. A model of emission from the ground was developed based on measurements and on empirical data obtained from remote sensing of the Earth from satellite-borne telescopes. This model was convolved with the computed antenna response to estimate conversion of ground emission into spurious polarized signal. The computed spurious signal is comparable to measured values, but is not accurate enough to be used to correct observations. A simpler model, in which the ground is considered as an unpolarized emitter with a brightness temperature of ∼240 K, is shown to have useful accuracy when compared to measurements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".