MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535520888 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/289

ACCURATE POLARIZATION CALIBRATION AT 800 MHz WITH THE GREEN BANK TELESCOPE

2016· article· en· W2535520888 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarization (electrochemistry)TelescopeGreen Bank TelescopeSynchrotronLeakage (economics)Stokes parametersQuasar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Polarization leakage of foreground synchrotron emission is a critical issue in H i intensity mapping experiments. While the sought-after H i emission is unpolarized, polarized foregrounds such as Galactic and extragalactic synchrotron radiation, if coupled with instrumental impurity, can mimic or overwhelm the H i signals. In this paper, we present the methodology for polarization calibration at 700–900 MHz, applied on data obtained from the Green Bank Telescope (GBT). We use astrophysical sources, both polarized and unpolarized sources including quasars and pulsars, as calibrators to characterize the polarization leakage and control systematic effects in our GBT H i intensity mapping project. The resulting fractional errors on polarization measurements on boresight are well controlled to within 0.6%–0.8% of their total intensity. The polarized beam patterns are measured by performing spider scans across both polarized quasars and pulsars. A dominant Stokes I to V leakage feature and secondary features of Stokes I to Q and I to U leakages in the 700–900 MHz frequency range are identified. These characterizations are important for separating foreground polarization leakage from the H i 21 cm signal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207