MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577088067 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v26i1.13780

Scheduling Ocean Color Observations for a GEO-Stationary Satellite

2016· article· en· W2577088067 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Frank, N. Minh, Tony Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterMinistry of Education, IndiaLangley Research CenterAmes Research CenterNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRemote sensingComputer scienceRadiometerSatelliteEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyCloud coverScheduling (production processes)Real-time computingOcean colorCloud computingGeologyGeographyAerospace engineeringEngineeringMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The GEO-Stationary Coastal and Air Pollution Events (GEO-CAPE) mission plans to put a visible spectrum imaging instrument on a satellite in geo-stationary orbit to perform ocean color remote sensing. Two different instrument designs, Filter Radiometer (FR) and COastal Ecosystems Dynamic Imager (COEDI), with different shape for the imaged area and image acquisition time, are being evaluated. Scheduling observations for either instrument requires optimizing science objectives in the presence of predicted cloud cover and available daylight. We model this scheduling problem as both Mixed Integer Linear Program (MILP) and Constraint Programming (CP) problems, and compare these two formulations for FR and COEDI using real cloudiness data collected at different times throughout the year. Our results show that MILP is the more suitable technique, and the schedule quality metric shows FR is the preferred design. We have reported our results to the GEO-CAPE mission team to assist them making an informed decision for the next step in formulating this mission.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207