MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623674299 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7844

The JCMT Transient Survey: Data Reduction and Calibration Methods

2017· article· en· W2623674299 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Mairs, James Lane, Doug Johnstone, Helen Kirk, Kevin Lacaille, Geoffrey C. Bower, Graham Bell, Sarah Graves, Scott Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtostarBrightnessPhysicsAstrophysicsStar formationWavelengthJames Clerk Maxwell TelescopeCalibrationData reductionAstronomyRemote sensingOpticsStarsComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Though there has been a significant amount of work investigating the early stages of low-mass star formation in recent years, the evolution of the mass assembly rate onto the central protostar remains largely unconstrained. Examining in depth the variation in this rate is critical to understanding the physics of star formation. Instabilities in the outer and inner circumstellar disk can lead to episodic outbursts. Observing these brightness variations at infrared or submillimeter wavelengths constrains the current accretion models. The JCMT Transient Survey is a three-year project dedicated to studying the continuum variability of deeply embedded protostars in eight nearby star-forming regions at a one-month cadence. We use the SCUBA-2 instrument to simultaneously observe these regions at wavelengths of 450 and 850 μm. In this paper, we present the data reduction techniques, image alignment procedures, and relative flux calibration methods for 850 μm data. We compare the properties and locations of bright, compact emission sources fitted with Gaussians over time. Doing so, we achieve a spatial alignment of better than 1″ between the repeated observations and an uncertainty of 2%–3% in the relative peak brightness of significant, localized emission. This combination of imaging performance is unprecedented in ground-based, single-dish submillimeter observations. Finally, we identify a few sources that show possible and confirmed brightness variations. These sources will be closely monitored and presented in further detail in additional studies throughout the duration of the survey.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207