MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982288820 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8

The Dragonfly Wide Field Survey. I. Telescope, Survey Design, and Data Characterization

2020· article· en· W2982288820 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkySurface brightnessDragonflyMilky WayTelescopeGalaxyBrightness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a description of the Dragonfly Wide Field Survey (DWFS), a deep photometric survey of a wide area of sky. The DWFS covers 330 deg 2 in the equatorial GAMA fields and the Stripe 82 fields in the SDSS g and r bands. It is carried out with the 48-lens Dragonfly Telephoto Array, a telescope that is optimized for the detection of low surface brightness emission. The main goal of the survey is to study the dwarf galaxy population beyond the Local Group. In this paper, we describe the survey design and show early results. We reach 1 σ depths of μ g ≈ 31 mag arcsec −2 on arcminute scales and show that Milky Way satellites such as Sextans, Bootes, and Ursa Major should be detectable out to D ≳ 10 Mpc. We also provide an overview of the elements and operation of the 48-lens Dragonfly telescope and a detailed description of its data reduction pipeline. The pipeline is fully automated, with individual frames subjected to a rigorous series of quality tests. The sky subtraction is performed in two stages, ensuring that emission features with spatial scales up to ∼0.°9 × 0.°6 are preserved. The DWFS provides unparalleled sensitivity to low surface brightness features on arcminute scales.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→