MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888709592 · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aada7f

The JCMT Gould Belt Survey: SCUBA-2 Data Reduction Methods and Gaussian Source Recovery Analysis

2018· article· en· W2888709592 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of WaterlooHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCanadian Space AgencyCompute CanadaCanarieCanadian Foundation for AIDS ResearchNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsJames Clerk Maxwell TelescopeData reductionGaussianTelescopeStarsScalingNoise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) Gould Belt Survey (GBS) was one of the first legacy surveys with the JCMT in Hawaii, mapping 47 deg2 of nearby (<500 pc) molecular clouds in dust continuum emission at 850 and 450 μm, as well as a more limited area in lines of various CO isotopologues. While molecular clouds and the material that forms stars have structures on many size scales, their larger-scale structures are difficult to observe reliably in the submillimeter regime using ground-based facilities. In this paper, we quantify the extent to which three subsequent data reduction methods employed by the JCMT GBS accurately recover emission structures of various size scales, in particular, dense cores, which are the focus of many GBS science goals. With our current best data reduction procedure, we expect to recover 100% of structures with Gaussian σ sizes of ≤30″ and intensity peaks of at least five times the local noise for isolated peaks of emission. The measured sizes and peak fluxes of these compact structures are reliable (within 15% of the input values), but source recovery and reliability both decrease significantly for larger emission structures and fainter peaks. Additional factors such as source crowding have not been tested in our analysis. The most recent JCMT GBS data release includes pointing corrections, and we demonstrate that these tend to decrease the sizes and increase the peak intensities of compact sources in our data set, mostly at a low level (several percent), but occasionally with notable improvement.

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)0.009
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement SeriesSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207