<i>Planck</i>2015 results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the characterization of the in-flight beams, the beam window functions, and the associated uncertainties for the Planck Low Frequency Instrument (LFI). The structure of the paper is similar to that presented in the 2013 Planck release; the main differences concern the beam normalization and the delivery of the window functions to be used for polarization analysis. The in-flight assessment of the LFI main beams relies on measurements performed during observations of Jupiter. By stacking data from seven Jupiter transits, the main beam profiles are measured down to –25 dB at 30 and 44 GHz, and down to –30 dB at 70 GHz. It has been confirmed that the agreement between the simulated beams and the measured beams is better than 1% at each LFI frequency band (within the 20 dB contour from the peak, the rms values are 0.1% at 30 and 70 GHz; 0.2% at 44 GHz). Simulated polarized beams are used for the computation of the effective beam window functions. The error budget for the window functions is estimated from both main beam and sidelobe contributions, and accounts for the radiometer band shapes. The total uncertainties in the effective beam window functions are 0.7% and 1% at 30 and 44 GHz, respectively (at ℓ ≈ 600); and 0.5% at 70 GHz (at ℓ ≈ 1000).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.019 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".