MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607649979 · doi:10.1063/1.4969015

IceCube real-time alert system

2017· article· en· W2607649979 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHelmholtz Alliance for Astroparticle PhysicsFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Science FoundationCompute CanadaWestern Canada Research GridOffice of Polar ProgramsVlaamse regeringPolarforskningssekretariatetFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSU.S. Department of EnergyVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsPhysicsNeutrinoFlux (metallurgy)SkyGravitational wavePopulationPulsarGamma rayAstronomyAstrophysicsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2013 the IceCube collaboration reported the first detection of a diffuse flux of astrophysical neutrinos. However their sources remain unknown. The fact that no distinct sources have been identified could be because there is a large population of weak sources, either steady or transient. The IceCube real-time program is motivated by the second possibility. Taking advantage of its continuous full-sky sensitivity, IceCube has established several alert channels in order to trigger observations from more sensitive instruments with smaller fields of view. A coincident observation of an enhanced electromagnetic flux or gravitational wave could provide strong evidence for a potential neutrino source. In this proceedings we discuss the technical aspects and science goals of the IceCube real-time alert program, concentrating on the channels most interesting for the gamma-ray community: the Gamma-ray Follow Up, Extremely High Energy and High Energy Starting Events. For completeness we also discuss the X-ray/Optical Follow-up channel.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207