MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804733339 · doi:10.25518/0037-9565.7498

The 4-m International Liquid Mirror Telescope

2018· article· en· W2804733339 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean Surdej, Paul Hickson, E. F. Borra, Jean-Pierre Swings, Serge Habraken, Talat Akhunov, P. Bartczak, Hum Chand, M. De Becker, L. Delchambre, F. Finet, Brajesh Kumar, Anil Kumar Pandey, Anna Pospieszalska, Bikram Pradhan, R. Sagar, O. Wertz, P. De Cat, Stefan Denis, Jonathan de Ville, Mukesh Kumar Jaiswar, P. Lampens, Nandish Nanjappa, Jean-Marc Tortolani

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liège · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsTelescopeSupernovaAstronomyQuasarSkyPhysicsOptical telescopeAstrophysicsOpticsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 4-m International Liquid Mirror Telescope (ILMT) is presently (March-June 2017) being erected on the ARIES site in Devasthal (Uttarakhand). We describe and illustrate in the present paper its different components. The ILMT will be used in the Time Delayed Integration (TDI) mode to carry out a deep survey and high S/N photometric and astrometric observations of solar system, galactic and extra-galactic objects within a narrow (24’) strip of sky. In principle, the ILMT should detect and regularly monitor more than 50 multiply imaged quasars. It will also detect numerous supernovae (see Kumar et al., these proceedings) as well as space debris (see Pradhan et al., also in these proceedings).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.016

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin de la Société Royale des Sciences de LiègeSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207