APOGEE Data Releases 13 and 14: Data and Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The data and analysis methodology used for the SDSS/APOGEE Data Releases 13 and 14 are described, highlighting differences from the DR12 analysis presented in Holtzman et al. Some improvement in the handling of telluric absorption and persistence is demonstrated. The derivation and calibration of stellar parameters, chemical abundances, and respective uncertainties are described, along with the ranges over which calibration was performed. Some known issues with the public data related to the calibration of the effective temperatures (DR13), surface gravity (DR13 and DR14), and C and N abundances for dwarfs (DR13 and DR14) are highlighted. We discuss how results from a data-driven technique, The Cannon, are included in DR14 and compare those with results from the APOGEE Stellar Parameters and Chemical Abundances Pipeline. We describe how using The Cannon in a mode that restricts the abundance analysis of each element to regions of the spectrum with known features from that element leads to Cannon abundances can lead to significantly different results for some elements than when all regions of the spectrum are used to derive abundances.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it